The Book of Leviticus is a book of good news because it teaches the forgiveness of sins through the appointed blood of atonement. Not that the blood of bulls and goats actually takes away sins (cf. Heb 10:4), but it points us to the blood that does -- that of the whole and spotless lamb Jesus Christ. The book shows that your sins cannot be atoned through the shedding of your own blood but only through the shedding of this blood. The way of salvation is narrow and it is not people-initiated but comes from God. All ancient peoples knew that they needed atonement, as their sacrificial systems showed, but salvation is from the Jews and in particular is from the priest-sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth.

The nation of Israel was to be set apart as a holy nation both morally and outwardly. The distinctions between clean and unclean animals demonstrated the distinction between the nation of Israel and the Gentiles. While election in Christ is still good news, just as this showed the election of Israel among the nations, we are no longer set apart in such external things because forgiveness of sins is now proclaimed to all nations in Jesus Christ. And the elect of every nation have the Spirit, setting us apart starting with our hearts. Demands that Christians preserve a particular culture whether forty years old or four hundred years old or whatever have missed this change in what the good news looks like and because they are a man-made way of salvation are dangerous.

And the Holiness Code consists of two chiasms. The first concentrates on loving your neighbor as yourself and the second on loving God with all of your heart and soul. Given the regulations that no longer continue, this too is a portion of Scripture that is much neglected. And yet this code is incredibly helpful in thinking through how we show our gratitude to God for the forgiveness of our sins due to the work of the priest-sacrifice Jesus Christ.

Labels: atonement of sins, clean, leviticus, priest, sacrifice, unclean, way of salvation

Lev 17:10-12 makes an interesting point worth quoting: "If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood" (ESV).

Thus the reason the people cannot eat blood (a regulation that goes back to Gen 9:4) is that life is in the blood and the blood makes atonement by the life. In other words, because of the role of blood in sacrifice (a point made by Dr. Richard Belcher of RTS, lectures on iTunes, for why discharges of blood make you unclean) and because of the symbolism of blood as life you could not eat it. During the time of the apostles there was a transition (Acts 15:20) where they allowed eating all animals as clean but not the blood (returning us to Gen 9:3-4). This makes sense to keep in place at the time because sacrifices, though effectively done away with in Christ's one sacrifice, continued to be performed at the temple until it was destroyed in AD 70. So as long as the sacrificial system continued for the Jewish people, this was a way for Jews and Gentiles to have table fellowship. These thoughts are made provisionally, I am open to your comments and ideas. Nevertheless, it is clear that it is important to see that you cannot atone for yourself (discharges of blood make you unclean) and you must be atoned for only by the blood appointed by God. And today we Spiritually drink the blood of Jesus.

But the fact that we are still discussing Lev 11-16 themes as we have moved onto the holiness regulations is one reason that people use to dismiss one commandment today: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22) and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them" (Lev 20:13). [The civil dimension to this latter expression of the law no longer applies as the ancient nation of Israel no longer exists (i.e. the death penalty would be inappropriate in our nation).] Both regulations call male homosexual behavior an abomination. But the most common reason people find it easy to dismiss these regulations today is a failure to see the structure of the book and to confuse the moral, civil, and ceremonial dimensions of the law (the moral continues forever, not so with the civil and ceremonial, see the Westminster Standards).

Usually Lev 17-26 is called "the Holiness Code" and Lev 27 has been seen as an appendix to the book of Leviticus. This code deals with everyday life and includes a lot of diversity in content. Belcher suggests that the structure is sacrifices (Lev 17), mostly sexual relationships (Lev 18), center 1: various relationships (Lev 19), mostly sexual relationships with penalty (Lev 20); sacrifices (Lev 21-22), religious calendar (Lev 23), center 2: rules on the tabernacle and case law for blasphemy (Lev 24), Sabbath and Jubilee (Lev 25). Therefore, we will not be addressing the chapters in order but topically.

The structure of Chapter 17, as Wenham notes, is into four paragraphs after the first two introductory verses. Lev 17:3-7 regulates killing animals without offering them, Lev 17:8-9 with offering sacrifices outside the tabernacle, Lev 17:10-12 with the eating of blood, and Lev 17:13-16 with rules about hunting. Each paragraph follows a similar pattern, "If any...," the sentence of "cutting off" and each has a concluding statement. This chapter ties the themes of Lev 11-16 with Lev 18-27 and we will see the themes of Lev 11-16 elsewhere in the holiness code especially about the Day of Atonement.

Lev 21 and 22 are parallel then to Lev 17. Wenham observes that this should be divided into six sections, each of which ends with "I, YHWH, sanctify you [him, them]" (Lev 21:8, 15, 23, 22:9, 16, 32-33). The regulations related here have to do with the priests and sacrifices. Priests, like the sacrifices, were to be whole and well. This is particularly fitting for Christ who is our priest and sacrifice.

Wenham notes that Chapter 18, follows the Hittite treaty genre (I would add, as does this whole code generally, with Lev 26 giving the curses and blessings). It begins the historical prologue by introducing YHWH (Lev 18:2) and continues by contrasting the way the people of Israel are to live to the ways of the Egyptians (where they lived) and Canaanites (where they will live) (Lev 18:3). Instead of following the statutes of the Egyptians or Canaanites, the people of Israel "shall follow my [YHWH's] rules and keep my [YHWH's] statutes and walk in them" (Lev 18:4). And the next verse lays out the principle of the Mosaic covenant: "if a person does them [YHWH's statutes and rules], he shall live by them" (Lev 18:5). The regulations of Lev 18:6ff cover sexual relations and then the covenant curses are described in Lev 18:24ff.

As you could see from Lev 15, discharges of semen make you unclean so that you cannot be in the tabernacle, which keeps Israel from cultic prostitution like in the surrounding nations (cf. Lev 19:29-30). And Lev 18 builds on that regarding sexual relationships by defining incestuous relationships (marriage makes you one blood and flesh) and other (mostly, but not exclusively) sexual sins including homosexuality and bestiality. Wenham observes that seven times Lev 18 says the people of Israel are not to behave like the Canaanites and six times the chapter says "I am YHWH (your God)".

It is quite interesting that in this list of sins forbidden in Lev 18 is child sacrifice (Lev 18:21), then homosexual male relations (Lev 18:22), and then bestiality (Lev 18:23). You can see the same general order with a few other things in between in Lev 20, the parallel chapter, with child sacrifice (Lev 20:2-5), homosexual male relations (Lev 20:13), and bestiality (Lev 20:15-16). The issue of child sacrifice to Molech is one of spiritual adultery (Lev 20:5). Wenham observes that the latter chapter is structured by the phrases "I am YHWH your God" and "Keep my rules." Some regulations do appeal back to Lev 11-16 like forbidding sex with a woman during her menstrual impurity (Lev 20:18). The main theme connecting all of these laws is that these sins make the land unclean. Thus Lev 18:26-30 and 20:22-23 both warn that the land could vomit out the people for the same reason they were displacing the Canaanites.

Between these parallel chapters mostly about sexual relationships (Lev 18 and 20) is the most well known chapter Lev 19. Wenham diagrams the literary structure conclusively: each paragraph ends "I am YHWH (your God)," which reveals four paragraphs of religious duties, four paragraphs of duties to your neighbor, and eight paragraphs of other miscellaneous duties. The first four paragraphs end, "I am YHWH your God" (Lev 19:2b, 3, 4, 10). The second four paragraphs end, "I am YHWH" (Lev 19:12, 14, 16, 18). And the eight paragraphs that follow end with both the shorter (Lev 19:28, 30, 32, 37) and longer versions (Lev 19:25, 31, 34, 36) and open and end with "Keep my rules" (Lev 19:19, 37). While to my knowledge Wenham does not note this it reveals the following pattern: Longer, shorter, shorter, longer, shorter, longer, longer, shorter. Thus there are four groups of four: the first four end with the longer version, the second four with the shorter version, the third four longer, shorter, shorter, longer and the last four shorter, longer, longer, shorter. This is without a doubt intentional.

The second pair of four is very tightly structured, as Wenham notes, with each paragraph adding a new word for neighbor. Lev 19:11-12 uses "fellow citizen" (here translated "one another"). Lev 19:13-14 uses "neighbor." Lev 19:15-16 uses "fellow citizen" (here translated "neighbor") as well as "people," and "neighbor." Lev 19:17-18 adds "brother" to "fellow citizen" (again translated here "neighbor"), "people, and "neighbor." Thus all four paragraphs can be summarized, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am YHWH."

In Lev 23 the phrase "I am YHWH your God" again shows us the structure. There are the spring festivals ending with Lev 23:22 and the fall festivals ending with Lev 23:43. These sections are further divided by the phrase, "it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings (...)" (Lev 23:14, 21-22, 31-32, 41-42). Thus we see (1) Passover and the feast of unleavened bread and firstfruits, (2) the feast of weeks, (3) the festival of trumpets and day of atonement, and (4) the feast of booths. This is a religious calendar for the people.

Lev 25, appropriately parallel to the religious calendar, is the discussion of Jubilee with "I am YHWH your God" marking the closing of a section (Lev 25:17-22, 38, 55). The first section deals with the sabbath for the land, the second with the redemption of property, and the third with the redemption of slaves. The Gospel of Luke shows how Jesus proclaimed Jubilee even though there is no evidence it was ever done in the history of Israel.

So the second center of the holiness code deals with rules for the tabernacle, a case of blasphemy with the eye for an eye principle explained. Wenham notes that Lev 24:16-22 is a chiasm (he calls it concentric because there is not one center), but actually, the whole of Lev 24:13-23 is a chiasm. It begins with YHWH speaking to Moses (Lev 24:13), then the instruction, "Bring out of the camp..." (Lev 24:14), then the instruction, "Speak to the people of Israel..." (Lev 24:15), then the law is said to be for "the sojourner as well as the native," (Lev 24:16) the next two are "whoever takes a [human or animal] life..." (Lev 24:17-18), and then the center two are "it shall be done [given] to him" (Lev 24:19-20), then killing an animal, then killing a person, then "You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native" (Lev 24:22), then Moses speaks, they "brought out of the camp the one who had cursed" (Lev 24:23), and the conclusion matching the opening: "Thus the people of Israel did as YHWH commanded Moses." It is interesting that this (beginning with Lev 24:10)is what continues the narrative of Leviticus. And it is interesting that the first center deals with the latter of the Ten Commandments and the second section deals with the former of the Ten Commandments. Lev 24:1-9 perhaps should be grouped with the previous section as it deals with the Sabbath and keeping the lamp burning.

Lev 26 lays out the blessings and curses of the Mosaic Law. It opens with "I am YHWH your God" and "I am YHWH" (Lev 26:1-2), the section ends "I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt" (Lev 26:13), and the whole chapter ends, "I am YHWH their God" and "I am YHWH" (Lev 26:44-45). The last verse of the chapter closes the holiness code with the narrative mark: "These are the statutes and rules and laws that YHWH made between himself and the people of Israel through Moses on Mount Sinai." Verse 13 ends the blessings, and verse 45 ends the curses. The curses can be further divided by noting "If you will not listen to me...I shall [punish] you ([again] sevenfold for your sins)" (Lev 26:14-16, 18, 21, 23-24, 27-28). On the other hand, Lev 26:40-45 offers restoration to the repentant. These blessings and curses fell upon Israel later in their history driving them into exile.

Lev 27, somewhat of an appendix about vows, resembles early chapters in Lev in that it is structured with "if a man..." phrases and "and if" phrases and the book ends with a similar narrative ending to the last chapter "These are the commandments that YHWH commanded Moses for the people of Israel on Mount Sinai" (Lev 27:34).

Labels: blasphemy, blood, child sacrifice, holiness code, holy, homosexual behavior, leviticus, religious calendar, tabernacle, treaty

What follows is a list of some New Testament texts that assume information learned in Lev 11-16:

Matt 8:2-4 [Mark 1:40-45][Luke 5:12-15]
Matt 15:11, 17-20 [Mark 7:18-19, 20-23]
Matt 9:20 [Mark 5:25ff] [Luke 8:43ff]
Matt 10:8, 11:5 [Luke 7:22]
Matt 23:25-26
Matt 23:27
Mark 5:13
Luke 1:10, 21
Luke 2:22-24 (quoting Lev 12:8)
Luke 4:27
Luke 11:38-41
Luke 17:12-19
John 2:6
John 13:8-11
John 15:3
John 18:28
Acts 10:10-11:18
Acts 19:12
Rom 14:14-20
1 Cor 7:14, 8:7
2 Cor 6:16-17, 7:1
1 Thess 4:7
Titus 1:15
Heb 9:7, 12-13, 24-25, 28, 10:4, 19-20, 21-22, 23, etc.
Rev 18:2
Rev 21:27

Labels: blood, childbirth, clean, defile, impurity, skin diseases, unclean

As the chart of Lev 8-10 reveals, the third panel (Lev 10) does not tell of Moses or Aaron offering sacrifices but instead says, "You are to distinguish between the holy and common, and between the unclean and the clean. And you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes that YHWH has spoken to them by Moses" (Lev 10:10-11). Thus we can see a transition in Lev 8-10 from sacrifices (Lev 1-7) to distinguishing the unclean and the clean (Lev 11-16). The sacrifices (Lev 1-7), performed by the priests (Lev 8-10) were necessary to make many unclean things clean (Lev 11-16).

The chapter divisions in your English Bibles are helpful since each chapter covers a subject starting with "YHWH spoke to Moses." Lev 11 deals with unclean animals. Lev 12 with the uncleanness of childbirth. Lev 13 with unclean skin and fungus diseases and Lev 14 with their cleansing. Lev 15 with unclean bodily discharges. And then finally Lev 16 addresses the day of atonement when the tabernacle itself is cleansed. The day of atonement was necessary because of Israel's uncleannesses and their transgressions (Lev 16:16). Thus Wenham says, "chs. 11-15 provide essential background for understanding the significance of the day of atonement (16)" (161). He also noticed the connection with Lev 10:10.

There is a three-fold distinction of clean and unclean animals: Land, water, and sky animals. For land animals they could eat whatever parts the hoof, is cloven-footed, and chews the cud (Lev 11:3). Other land animals like the camel, rock badger, hare (each chews the cud but does not part the hoof) (Lev 11:4-6) and the pig (parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud) (Lev 11:7) are unclean. The people were not to eat them, or touch their dead carcasses, because "they are unclean to you" (Lev 11:8).

For water animals, they could eat everything with fins and scales (Lev 11:9) but other water animals were "detestable to you" (Lev 11:10-12). And for the sky creatures, first are listed some "detestable" birds (Lev 11:13-19), then winged insects that go on all fours are said to be "detestable" (Lev 11:20) but then the next verse says there is an exception for those with jointed legs above their feet to hop on the ground (Lev 11:21) and lists those you could eat (Lev 11:22).

The rest of the chapter deals with the treatment of this uncleanness and mentions other animals that are unclean like mice and lizards. These regulations served to set Israel apart chosen from the nations as holy because YHWH is holy (Lev 11:44-45). This was symbolic for the division between holy Jews (represented by the chosen animals) and common Gentiles (represented by the animals that were not chosen). It is notable, as Wenham says, that animals were expected to keep Torah and those people or animals who drink blood or eat flesh without draining blood are unclean. Actually the law forbidding eating meat with the blood still in it predates Moses. Noah was told, "You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (Gen 9:4), which may explain why the apostles kept this prohibition (Acts 21:25). But nevertheless, the animals were set apart of God's election.

And even this verse in Gen 9 is not the first time that people were forbidden to eat certain things: Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from one tree, though it is interesting that there are no unclean plants in Leviticus. However, the seriousness of the uncleanness for the people of Israel was relatively little since all that was required for cleansing when one came into contact with a dead carcass of an unclean animal was washing and waiting until evening. And the distinction between clean and unclean animals is abolished in the New Testament because the distinction between Jews and Gentiles is abolished in Christ.

Lev 12 is much shorter, but more serious since it includes sacrifices as part of the cleansing. Here we are looking at the uncleanness of childbirth. The numbers are significant: unclean and contagiously so for seven days for a boy (Lev 12:2) and fourteen days for a girl (Lev 12:5). She must stay at home for 33 days for a boy (Lev 12:4) and 66 days for a girl (Lev 12:5). Thus a total of 40 days for a boy and 80 days for a girl (traditional period of testing is 40 days or multiples thereof). The boy is circumcised on the eighth day (Lev 12:3). Circumcision is the sign of the covenant and failure to do it would cut off that son from his people. The offerings are to make atonement for her and to purify her from the discharge of blood (Lev 12:6-8). It has been suggested that we remember the increased pain of childbirth was a reminder of the curse due to original sin. Wenham notes that the structure of a period of uncleanness, sacrifice, summary, and provision for the poor reappears in other chapters in Leviticus (186).

Lev 13-14 deal with skin diseases. It may be that because these diseases are visible that they are singled out for ceremonial uncleanness. All diseases remind us of death and thus have something in common with issues of blood (blood symbolizing life). The skin diseases are classified based on what they look like on the outside. And periods of seven days are common to see if it gets better or worse to make a diagnosis. The priest, as a servant of the Lord, has declarative power here -- he declares if the person is clean or unclean based on the criteria in Scripture. The cleansing is more difficult, when it is possible, for such diseases. And these sacrifices are for atonement. And they prepare us for Jesus who cleanses many and the priests then are forced to declare them clean and then Jesus offers Himself up as a sacrifice for atonement of sin.

Lev 15 deals with unclean discharges first from men. The one who has a discharge waits seven days for his cleansing and washes his clothes and bathes his body (Lev 15:13). And on the eighth day he offers sacrifices (Lev 15:14). An emission of semen makes the man unclean until evening and he has to bathe his body (Lev 15:16). The chapter transitions to women by mentioning the case of a man who does so while laying with a woman (Lev 15:18). The next verse (Lev 15:19) discusses how menstrual impurity lasts for seven days and later verses deal also with situations where blood issues may last longer (Lev 15:25). The purpose statement is then given about defiling the tabernacle (Lev 15:31).

Lev 16 addresses the day of atonement. Given the atonement sacrifices of many of the previous chapters, we can see the need for a day of atonement. These are themes that seem odd to modern ears but ones that are consistent in the Old Testament. The themes run throughout Ezekiel, especially for our purposes in Ezek 44:23. The prophet Ezekiel even compares Israel's ways and deeds to the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual impurity (Ezek 36:17) -- a comment that only makes sense given these chapters in Leviticus. He also mentions this particular impurity elsewhere (Ezek 18:6, 22:10). And the prophet is concerned with this issue of uncleanness so much that it appears repeatedly like when God says, "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you" (Ezek 36:25). So there is a need for a more permanent removal of these uncleannesses than a single day of atonement each year could provide.

Aaron had to offer atonement for himself and his house first and then he could do so for the nation. The reason to "make atonement for the Holy Place" was "because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses" (Lev 16:16). One goat Aaron would put his hands on its head and "confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness" (Lev 16:21). This takes place on the tenth day of the seventh month (Lev 16:29).

Labels: blood, childbirth, clean, common, day of atonement, holy, moses, numbers, skin diseases, ten, unclean

Remembering that the laws were situated in a narrative framework, the narrative continues with the story of the ordination setting apart Aaron and his sons as priests. But these three chapters are set apart because while the rest of Leviticus has a narrative framework it is mostly legal material whereas these chapters are mostly narrative. As Wenham says, "The history provides a setting for the laws, not vice versa" (129).

Lev 8 spells out in more detail what Exodus ended saying shall happen (Exo 40:12-16). Those verses in Exodus lay out the parts of the ordination service that set apart Aaron and his sons as priests. There is a ceremonial washing element, they receive the priestly garments resembling the tabernacle (as Meredith Kline notes), and they are anointed with oil. Tremper Longman argues that it is possible that the narrative may not be in chronological order because Exodus 19:22-24 mentions priests (123). But such harmonization seems unnecessary since the author wanted it to be clear that no one in this kingdom of priests (Exo 19:6) would be permitted. Priests and people in Exo 19:24 then is simply two parts for the whole nation appropriate in the context like heavens and earth are two parts for the whole of creation.

The English chapter and verse numberings of Lev 8-10 are helpful to see the three-fold structure of this section. The sacrifices of Lev 1-3 also followed a three-fold arrangement. In Lev 8-10 the narrative approach can be seen by looking at key words and the order of events. In this approach to writing, not everything shows up in each panel. Take for example, chapter 8 begins "YHWH spoke to Moses" (Lev 8:1) and chapter 9 begins "Moses called Aaron" (Lev 9:1) but chapter ten is missing this element (and thus the problem that unfolds). It is not an accident that the verb in Lev 9:1 is "called" given this text is about ministry as priests. You can see a table of these chapters compared to each other in Wenham (133) and I have made a table based on it that you can download here.

Book One of Genesis also had a three-fold arrangement, ordination is a new creation event taking seven days (Lev 8), this time Aaron does not recapitulate the fall (Lev 9), but his two disobedient sons go the way of Cain (Lev 10). On day 8, Aaron's sacrifices are accepted (Lev 9) but the following chapter (10) shows us the rejection of his sons' offerings. Adam was the priest of the garden of Eden until driven out and Lev 10 even thematically resembles Gen 4 because Cain's offerings were rejected.

Wenham notes that there is a chiastic arrangement in chapter eight as to the commandments and their fulfillment. The first command was about Aaron's clothes (Lev 8:2) and the second about assembling the people (Lev 8:3), but the fulfillment sees the congregation assembled (Lev 8:4-5) before Aaron's clothes (Lev 8:6-9). I have mentioned before that Aaron's clothes are important because they represent the glory of the image of God (parallel to Moses having a shining face). So here again we have a creation allusion and thankfully Aaron does not lose the renewed image (Lev 10:6).

As in Exodus, Moses stands in for God. When Moses is satisfied you assume that God is too (Lev 10:20, which uses a verb meaning 'to be good'), when Moses speaks it is the word of God (even when not explicitly said, cf. Lev 10:4, 6-7 as Wenham notes). And Moses acts as the priest until the ordination of Aaron and his sons is complete, while Aaron and his sons perform the role of the common worshiper. We should never overlook that the priests in this system were themselves needing forgiveness.

Then the death of two of Aaron's sons near the end of this narrative is yet another reminder (after the Exodus golden-calf incident) that the priests needed to follow God's worship regulations precisely. This is a theme we have highlighted repeatedly. In particular, the common phrase "as YHWH commanded Moses" is very prevalent in these chapters. Wenham mentions that chapter 8 closely quotes Exo 29 in order to stress their strict obedience to the commandments. Chapter 9 paraphrases Lev 1-7. The problem opening chapter 10 is that two of Aaron's sons did something that was not commanded by God (Lev 10:1), but later in the chapter the participants do precisely what is right. This is further demonstration of the regulative principle of worship (as it has come to be known in Reformed theology). The regulative principle is that we not only forbid in worship what Scripture forbids but the only elements allowed in worship are commanded in Scripture.

We can see then how Moses points to Jesus Christ. Moses is the mediator who acts as priest until the priests are ordained. Jesus is the prophet greater than Moses who continues to ordain leaders in His church and He is a priest forever and is interceding on our behalf in the heavenly tabernacle. Jesus is the prophet like Moses whose words are the very word of God. Jesus is the priest greater than the priesthood of Aaron and his sons. Jesus is the very glory-image of the invisible God and He is the way to worship God. Jesus, the God-man, is the mediator that Moses and the priesthood foreshadowed between God and people. The main difference is that Jesus is without sin and the sacrifice of His death is once-for-all.

It is no accident that ordination services today remember our baptisms (a ceremonial washing), often include the giving of symbols of ministry (often garment related), and laying on of hands (something we have seen with the sacrifices in Leviticus). Today we have the priesthood of all believers (as well as the prophethood of all believers) but Christ still sets some apart by ordination to serve in particular ways, especially to regulate worship according to the word of God and to teach the word of God.

Labels: Aaron, Aaron's robe, exodus, Genesis, image of God, leviticus, moses, ordination, priest, priesthood of all believers, sacrifice

In preparing this post I am selectively looking at commentaries by Gordon Wenham (1979) NICOT and S.H. Kellogg (1891). I would also recommend Tremper Longman III's Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel's Worship in The Gospel according to the Old Testament series and Vern Poythress' The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses.

Of the Old Testament Gospels, Leviticus is the most neglected book. The Torah are Old Testament Gospels and give us at least two different perspectives on the teaching ministry of Moses (Gen-Num compared to Deuteronomy, which means 'second law') just as the NT gives us four perspectives on the teaching ministry of Jesus. We have seen that the structure of the Pentateuch follows a narrative, poetry, epilogue pattern. Genesis does this. Exodus through Numbers, read together, do this. And Deuteronomy follows this pattern (with an additional poem and epilogue telling us about the death of Moses). But the point for Leviticus is that these laws are part of the narrative begun in Exodus and finished in Numbers (where a poem and epilogue follow). Therefore, the laws of Leviticus are set within a narrative framework.

Specifically, the narrative continues the story of Exodus because at the end of Exodus (Exo 40:34-38) we are told that the cloud covered the tent of meeting and the glory of YHWH filled the tabernacle. Lev 1:1 begins with the same setting saying, YHWH called Moses from the tent of meeting. It is important that the word is "called" rather than "said" or something similar. The book is about the calling of Israel to be set apart as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exo 19:6). And the laws set forth in the book set Israel apart as different from the world so that they might fulfill their calling to reach the world.

It is also worth noting that the order of the priest's section in Lev 6-7 (in the Hebrew verse numbering, in English Bibles this begins with Lev 6:8) reflects the order of the offerings done in Exo 29. Moreover, Lev 1-5 was revealed in the tabernacle, Exo 29 and Lev 6-7 are revealed on Sinai. We will see that Lev 1-5 is arranged theologically and thematically, but Lev 6-7 is arranged by order of frequency. In any case, the whole of Lev 1-7 continues to show us that God is very concerned with the way we worship and we know that the way is ultimately Jesus Christ who fulfills these sacrifices and is our priest.

I think that the reason reading Leviticus is so difficult is that we do not try to outline it. Lev 1-7 is about sacrifice laws with Lev 1-5 (Eng. 6:7) giving instructions for common worshipers and Lev 6-7 (Eng 6:8ff) giving instructions for the priests. Using English verse numbers: the order of the offerings in Lev 1-6:7 is the burnt offering (1), the cereal offering (2), the peace offering (3), the purification offering (4:1-5:13), and the reparation offering (5:14-6:7). The order of the offerings in the instructions for the priests is the burnt offering (Lev 6:8-13), the cereal offering (Lev 6:14-18), the priest's cereal offering (Lev 6:19-23), the purification offering (Lev 6:24-30), the reparation offering (Lev 7:1-10), and the peace offering (Lev 7:11-36). This is followed in Wenham's outline, which this paragraph borrows, by two verses of summary (Lev 7:37-38). The order of the priest's instructions is by frequency performed with the peace offering last because it was an optional sacrifice done least often.

Looking at the common worshiper's instructions, it also makes sense to begin with the burnt offering because it was the most common offering, even if it was not first when you are doing more than one kind of offering. For example, you would do a purification offering before the burnt offering (Lev 9). It appears that the order of these offerings is to make them easier to learn/teach and it keeps Moses from being too repetitive because earlier portions are assumed later. The cereal and peace offerings were also food offerings with a pleasing aroma to YHWH, which is why these three are next to each other.

In the first chapter, after two introductory verses, each section on the burnt offering ends "a food offering with a pleasing aroma to YHWH" (Lev 1:9, 13, 17): the first section (Lev 1:3-9) deals with burnt offerings of cattle, the second (Lev 1:10-13) with burnt offerings of sheep or goats and the third section (Lev 1:14-17) with burnt offerings of birds. Cattle are more valuable than sheep or goats, and those herd animals more than birds. This is the reason for the order. For the sake of brevity, the second and third situations assume material included in the first (the longest description).

Burnt offerings had been offered at key times already in the Torah including right after the flood and the Ram instead of Isaac. And Jesus' death, as the new Isaac, was likened to the burnt offering (Eph 5:2, 1 Pet 1:18-19), though once for all (Heb 7:27). All of these offerings under the laity section are those brought by the people. For the burnt offering of cattle or sheep or goats the text required a male without blemish. The laying on of hands (Lev 1:4) conveyed a transfer from the worshipper to that animal being sacrificed. And the burnt offering "shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him" (Lev 1:4). The offering up of the one with whom the Father was "well pleased" was thus the fulfillment of the burnt offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD (Lev 1:9, 13, 17).

The second chapter of Leviticus covers the grain offerings. The first two sections end saying that the priest shall burn some of the food offering as its memorial portion on the altar, "a food offering with a pleasing aroma to YHWH. But the rest of the grain offering shall be for Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of YHWH's food offerings" (Lev 2:2-3, 9-10). The first section deals with raw grain offerings and the second section with unleavened baked grain offerings. The third section deals with general rules about grain offerings and allows for those that are not for a pleasing aroma to YHWH (Lev 2:12) and other firstfruits grain offerings. The common theme in the third section is that they are firstfruits offerings and the section ends "it is a food offering to YHWH" (Lev 2:16). Usually it would follow the burnt offering. Therefore, the priest having pronounced your sins forgiven you would respond with a cereal offering of the produce of your land. The priests relied on these offerings for food and burned a portion as their offering to God.

The third chapter of Leviticus covers the peace offerings. Here again we have three sections. The first ends "it is a food offering with a pleasing aroma to YHWH" (Lev 3:5) and the second ends "a food offering to YHWH" (Lev 3:11) and the third has a longer ending (Lev 3:16-17). The first section covers cattle, the second sheep, and the third goats. Here the offering can be male or female but must still be without blemish. There is again a laying on of hands. Many of the things we said about the burnt offerings apply here, but the peace offering is less important than the burnt offering. One difference not noted here is that the worshiper could enjoy a portion of the offering so that it is a feast for YHWH, the priests, and the worshipers. This is implied because only certain parts of the animal are mentioned for burning on top of the burnt offering. We discover in the priest's section on this offering that it could be for confession, vows, or free-will.

Leviticus 4 and 5, on the purification offering (4:1-5:13) and the reparation offering (5:14-6:7) have a similar structure to each other. Here the value of the animal offered is not important. As Wenham puts it, "Here the most important distinction is between inadvertent sins and sins of omission or deliberate sins. The status of the sinners who bring the offerings is also important" (87). This yields the following table: purification offerings for unintentional sins (Lev 4:1-35), purification offerings for sins of omission (Lev 5:1-13), reparation offerings for unintentional sins (Lev 5:14-19), reparation offerings for intentional sins (Lev 6:1-7). Each section begins, "If anyone sins..." and ends "And the priest shall make atonement for him...and he shall be forgiven...." These sections can be divided further by noting the "if" or in the case of Lev 4:22 "when" clauses. For unintentional sin, blood can be sprinkled in the holy place for the high priest and for the whole congregation, smeared on the main altar for the tribal leader, a worshiper offering a goat, a worshiper offering a lamb. For sins of omission, the offering can be a lamb or goat, birds, or flour. These offerings were less valuable and done less often than the burnt offering. Nevertheless, these offerings show us (1) the problem of unintentional sin, (2) that our sin (intentional or not) makes it impossible for God to be with us without confession of sin, restitution where appropriate (the NT gospels give examples), and a sacrifice, and (3) that the sins of leaders are more serious than the rest of the congregation.

Some notes on the priest's instructions: the fire that they needed to keep going for the burnt offerings (Lev 6:13) was lit by God from heaven (Lev 9:24, cf. 2 Chronicles 7:1); these instructions are detailed as to what portions the priest could eat, if any, and what portions they tithed to God; detailed about how long they had to eat it; and most of this section (by contrast to Lev 1-6:7) is to be spoken to Aaron and his sons except the two asides about the peace offerings starting with Lev 7:22 and 7:28. Remember that portions of the peace offerings could be eaten by the common worshiper bringing it.

Kellogg reflects,

Of what use can the book of Leviticus be to believers now? We answer, first, that it is to us, just as much as to ancient Israel, a revelation of the character of God. It is even a clearer revelation of God's character to us than to them ; for Christ has come as the Fulfiller, and thus the Interpreter, of the law. And God has not changed. He is still exactly what He was when He called to Moses out of the tent of meeting or spoke to him at Mount Sinai. He is just as holy as then ; just as intolerant of sin as then ; just as merciful to the penitent sinner who presents in faith the appointed blood of atonement, as He was then (24-25).

Labels: burnt offering, cereal offering, exodus, gospel genre, grain offering, law, leviticus, peace offering, priest, purification offering, reparation offering, sacrifice

The Second Commandment is the focus of the ark, tabernacle, golden calf, tabernacle ark narrative in Exodus. Note the chiasm puts the text on the golden calf (Exo 32-34) at the center, which is why we are addressing it separately for emphasis. That the building of the tabernacle and ark begins after this false worship is a demonstration of God's grace and mercy. These central chapters tell us of Israel's rebellion against the authority of God, the mediation of Moses for the people, and the restoration of the people.

The Heidelberg Catechism says regarding the second commandment: "That we should not represent him or worship him in any other manner than he has commanded in his word" (96). All of our confessions that address the second commandment agree (cf. the Scots Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Second Helvetic Confession, and the Westminster Standards). Making such images and worshiping using those images are the two things addressed by the commandment. This reflects the wording of the second commandment (as numbered by Reformed theologians): "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not worship [bow down to] them or serve them" (Exo 20:4-5, NASB).

Keep in mind that this is a summary of a whole category of sins. The underlying issue is whether Israel will worship God the way that He has revealed. And ultimately this points us to Jesus, whom we worship, as the revealed image of God. This is only possible because humanity was made in the image of God -- this is why Jesus could be fully human and fully divine. Nevertheless, the first has more to do with whom we worship and the second with the way we worship. And Jesus is the way.

The people of Israel represented God with a golden calf and worshiped God using that calf. While this distinction may not apply to the masses, the more sophisticated among them might argue (keeping with the culture of the Ancient Near East (ANE)) that the golden calf was not meant to be God but a footstool or throne for God. In other words, God rides the golden calf. Even so, making the golden calf was a sinful act breaking the second commandment. And this was compounded when they used the golden calf in worship. This is a recurring sin in Israel. For example, see the Gideon narrative (Judges 8:22-27). In both situations the people were not attempting to worship a false god. They were attempting to worship the true God in a way he had not revealed.

Translations communicate the serious failure in their effort to worship the true God by calling what they worship "gods" (Exo 32:1, 4, 8, 23, and 31). The word "gods" and the word "God" in the Hebrew are the exact same form. We translate this gods, even though there is only one calf, because of the plural form of other words in the Hebrew clause. However, it is safe to say that the people think they are worshiping YHWH just using this calf instead of waiting for the ark that has not yet been built. Aaron even says, "Tomorrow will be a feast to YHWH" (Exo 32:5). The God who brought them up out of the land of Egypt (Exo 32:4) is now being represented with this calf. In fact, this allusion to the prologue of the Ten Commandments (Exo 20:2) shows us that they are starting their own religion.

It is helpful to compare and contrast true and false religion in Exodus. Instead of the ark, in Exo 32 we have the golden calf. Both were made of gold and both were designed to be the footstool or throne of YHWH God. The difference is that God revealed the pattern for the construction of the ark, whereas the golden calf was man's religion. Instead of the festival to YHWH (Exo 10:9, 12:14, 13:6) the people would be doing after the Exodus event (that is, Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread and also in contrast to the meal with the elders on Mount Sinai), there is a new festival to YHWH initiated by Aaron. Both true and false worship in Exodus shared the same high priest. But when it is true worship Aaron would do what God has revealed, when it is false worship Aaron would act on his own. Instead of the Song of Moses and Miriam there is new singing. In many respects the festival is a parody of the victory celebration after the Exodus event. But the most fundamental difference is the law. Both have the prologue to the Ten Commandments (Exo 20:2, 32:4) but the false religion does not have the commandments. Thus Moses breaks the tablets of the Ten Commandments as a prophetic statement that they are not worthy to have them.

Note that when talking with Moses, God calls the people of Israel "your people" (cf. Exo 32:7). This is similar to Ezekiel 33 (see the sermon blog). And God proposes to make Moses a new Abraham by starting over with Moses (Exo 32:10). But Moses, as a prophet, intercedes for the people by reminding God of His promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel (an interesting choice since usually Scripture says, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) (Exo 32:13) and by reminding God that they are not only Moses' people but they are "your people" (Exo 32:11ff). The reminder refers also to the reputation/name of YHWH (Exo 32:12). And God relented -- He changed His mind. Prayer changes things. Moses is finally excelling as a mediator, but still shows us our need for Jesus who is the perfect mediator.

And Moses comes down and gets Joshua, who is unaware of what is going on in the camp, and they went into the camp and destroyed the idol and made the people of Israel drink the powder left over from it. Moses confronted Aaron about it. Aaron had been confronted by an angry mob to begin the chapter (Exo 32:1) and now he appeals to that (Exo 32:21ff). His answer about throwing the gold into the fire and out came the golden calf directly contradicts what the text earlier said Aaron did (Exo 32: 4, 24). But nonetheless the Levites were the only ones who sided with Moses and YHWH (Exo 32:26) and slaughtered three thousand of the men of Israel.

And Moses went back up on the mountain and continued his intercession even wishing to be blotted out of the book of life in their place (Exo 32:32ff). And YHWH sent a plague on the people (Exo 32:35). Exodus 33 continues the intercession. The issue is whether Israel would be heaven on earth -- whether God be in their midst (see the previous post). The problem is that God is holy and would consume His people for their sins. But Moses insists that God must go with His people.

The restoration of Israel as the kingdom of priests and a holy nation then begins. Moses gets to see the glory of God (Exo 33:22). Moses gets another two tablets of the Ten Commandments. The covenant is renewed. A couple observations: note Exo 34:17 on the Second Commandment (only mentioning that they "shall not make" and not the other half "shall not worship") and the next verse mentions the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exo 34:18) and another mentions the Feast of Weeks (Exo 34:22). He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten words (Exo 34:28). Here again we see the forty days and nights. The point in all of this is to say that things are back on track in contrast with the golden calf worship episode. And Moses' face shined (Exo 34:29ff). This is part of the image-glory of God. He is being renewed in the image of God (the theme of the image of God therefore covers the entire section of Exo 32-34). Paul would refer to this in 2 Cor 3:7-18.

Thus together with the section we looked at last time we come to the end of Exodus, but structurally we have not yet come to an end to the book. The laws of Leviticus will continue the narrative from here. We have not yet seen the poetry and epilogue.

Labels: ark, exodus, golden calf, idolatry, tabernacle, ten commandments

The content of chapters 25-31 is essentially the same as 35-40 except the order is chiastic. The instructions are for the ark first and then the tabernacle second. But when they are built the tabernacle is first and the ark is second. In any case, it is incredibly important that 35-40 reflects 25-31 because of what happens in Exo 32-34 -- the Golden Calf episode. We should note in the next post how the Golden Calf contrasts with the tabernacle and ark. But for now the basic point is that this section of Scripture is concerned with the Second Commandment. The Second Commandment forbids worship that is not according to the pattern God has revealed in His word and commands that we worship according to the pattern God has revealed in His word. It is very important that Moses has it built exactly right (Exo 25:8-9).

This sanctuary, one of the reasons it is inappropriate to call the place where you worship a church sanctuary (the people are the church sanctuary), is to be a reflection of the heavenly sanctuary (cf. Heb 8:5). The pattern is very important. God initiated the building project and provided the materials, which came from the plunder of Egypt.

The tabernacle has a three part structure for different levels of holiness. The same pattern can be found back in Exo 24:1-18 when we were looking at Mount Sinai. Sinai and the Tabernacle are earthly replicas of the heavenly sanctuary of God. As things get closer to the ark they are more holy and the materials are more expensive (bronze, to silver, to gold, then to fine gold). Also, fewer and fewer people are permitted to enter as you get closer to the ark: any and all can be outside the camp, inside the camp only ritually clean Israelites can come, in the courtyard the laypeople could come to bring ritually clean animals for sacrifice, in the tabernacle only priest and Levites could come, and the high priest could only enter the holy of holies (a superlative -- the holiest place) once a year on the Day of Atonement. Creation itself is a temple/tabernacle: the earth is the footstool of God's cosmic temple/tabernacle. The three fold division is earth, visible heavens, invisible heaven of heavens (thus we are back to seeing connections with Gen 1).

The tabernacle is God's sanctuary on earth. The ark is His throne (cf. Jer 3:16-17) or the footstool of His throne (1 Chron 28:2). In the ark were the stone tablets of the covenant. It was common in the ancient near east (ANE) to have two copies of a covenant. The copies would be deposited in the temple of the gods of the greater king (the suzerain) and the lesser king (his vassal). Since there is only one God and the covenant is between Him and His people, the two copies of the covenant (the Ten Commandments tablets) are put in the tabernacle. The tabernacle (a tent) is at the center of the camp where ordinarily in the ANE the king would put his tent. Therefore, you are meant to connect the role of the Tabernacle with God's rule as King over Israel. It is a picture of heaven on earth -- the world as it should be -- God with us.

The creation of the tabernacle is therefore a re-creation event -- a new creation event. The Spirit is involved in both as creation in Gen 1 is the work of the Spirit of God (Gen 1:2) and those who work on the tabernacle are given the Spirit (Exo 35:31). Also the phrase "YHWH said to Moses" occurs seven times during the instructions (the first six: Exo 25:1, 30:11, 17, 22, 34, 31:1), the last time (Exo 31:12) introducing the instructions for the Sabbath. Moreover, (cf. Exo 39:32, 43) when the work is finished, Moses blesses the people and he inspects the work like God does when God declares the creation good (Exo 39:43). And the tabernacle is set up "on the first day of the first month in the second year" (Exo 40:17, NIV). Remember the first month was changed to reflect the Exodus event (Exo 12:2).

The first microcosmic picture of heaven on earth we have is the Garden of Eden. We should associate the menorah with Eden as its description resembles a tree. It is on fire, which may also mean to remind us of the burning bush. The references to images of cherubim should remind us that they guard the way to the tree of life in the epilogue of Gen 3. The tabernacle is a microcosm of heaven on earth.

As the tabernacle represented God's presence with his people on earth, the incarnation fulfills this Immanuel (God with us) principle. As John 1:14 should be best translated, "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we looked at his glory, glory as the only one from the Father, full of grace and truth." And now Jesus is seated at the right hand of God the Father in the heavenly tabernacle. The OT priests ministered in the earthy shadow and copy of the tabernacle of heaven, but Jesus intercedes for us from the seat of power.

And our bodies are tabernacles for the Spirit. We are being clothed with a heavenly sanctuary (2 Cor 5:1-4). This means that our actions should flow out of our identity as holy ground. Our bodies were originally made to replicate the heavenly tabernacle (being made in the image of God). And we see a hint of this recovery of the image glory when Moses transfigured face shines and from the description of Aaron's robes. (The division of the office of mediator into prophet (Moses) and priest (Aaron) was a division of glory. This office, never meant to be separated, is reunited in Jesus). If you want to explore the significance of Aaron's robe, compare it with the tabernacle and recall those things we said about the tabernacle (there are even seven day patterns).

The book of Exodus is about New Creation. It is a creation where the rule of God (the kingdom of Heaven/God) is reestablished -- heaven on earth -- a creation where God and his people can live in harmony forevermore. This is why the book says so much about the building of the tabernacle.

I have simply retyped and reworded an earlier lecture I gave on this material that is not sourced but the teaching here is a combination of Meredith Kline and Peter Enns.

Labels: Aaron's robe, ark, Genesis 1, glory, God with us, heaven, image of God, mediator, new creation, sabbath, tabernacle, ten commandments

First and foremost it is important to observe that the giving of the law comes after the Exodus salvation event. Thus under the Old and New Covenants a major reason for the law is to know how to display an attitude of gratitude for salvation. The people are not given the law in order to earn salvation. They were saved by what God did for them. Thus the theme: "You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians" (Exo 19:4). Their response is to obey his law so that they may be used to the end God desires. That is, as a kingdom of priests to intercede for the nations the way that Moses intercedes for Israel (Exo 19:5, cf. 1 Peter 2:4-10). Chapter 19 is the prelude to and preparation for the giving of the Ten Commandments.

The people are being set apart as the treasured possession of God among the nations upon the condition of obedience (Exo 19:5). Here we are to see similarity with the conditional covenant with Abraham (see discussion on Book Six). This is a conditional covenant they ultimately would not keep, but the unconditional covenant with Abraham would continue. Like they would later when ratifying the covenant (i.e. Josh 24:18), the people here (Exo 19:8) and later in this section (Exo 24:3, 7) say that they will do all the words of the LORD.

Note the context of the giving of the Ten Commandments. God is coming down in a thick cloud onto the mountain. The people hear the Ten Commandments from God speaking from heaven. Therefore, the people had to prepare spiritually -- ritually for his coming. Anyone who touches the mountain without authorization from God will die (Exo 19:12). The people stand at the foot of the mountain to meet God and hear the Ten Commandments (Exo 19:17). The sound of the LORD is thunder -- the sound of a huge army. This reminds us of the terror of The Day back in Genesis 3 when God came down on Mount Eden. Only Moses and Aaron are able to go up on the mountain at this point. And God spoke. The people will respond by noting their need for a mediator (Exo 20:19).

And God establishes the covenant -- a treaty with his vassal nation. It follows the normal ancient near eastern treaty format. God introduces himself and gives a historical prologue (Exo 20:2). And then lays out the ten stipulations of the covenant. This is a summary of the law. The Reformed understanding of how to number the commandments highlights idolatry (Exo 20:4-6) as a separate commandment from the first (Exo 20:3). Thus the commandment concerning idolatry deals with how we worship whereas the first commandment concerns who we worship. As a summary of the laws regarding how we worship, this is the most serious example. But it represents all of the regulations of worship in Scripture. This shows why Reformed theology is concerned that we only worship God as He has revealed that He desires to be worshiped in His word. Other traditions have to divide up the commandment on coveting to count to ten and are more open to including man-made traditions in worship. It is significant that there are TEN -- the number of fullness.

These commandments point us back to the salvation from Egypt and to creation. These commandments are a summary of the moral law of the covenant of creation. That the first commandment (Exo 20:3) was in force at the time of creation is beyond dispute. The Westminster Standards note that "before me" (Exo 20:3) means in the presence of the true God. The plagues and Exodus event showed that the LORD was greater than all other gods. The LORD is the God who created the heavens and the earth (Gen 2:4). The second commandment (Exo 20:4-6) points us to creation because humankind is made in the image of God (Gen 1:27). This is why the LORD could come as a person -- Jesus. This is why we are not to make images of God. Note the contrast of generations under curse (three and four) with those showing loyal-love (thousands) (Exo 20:5-6).

I will not demonstrate each commandment in this manner, but know that all of them point us back to creation. The Ten Commandments, as related here in Exodus, does this explicitly with the Sabbath ("for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea..." Exo 20:11). The next commandment points us forward to the Promised Land (Exo 20:12). These are the conditional covenant stipulations for remaining in the land as a kingdom of priests. We have shown elsewhere that the commandment regarding adultery arises from creation. The commandment regarding murder points us to the same issues as the second commandment -- we are made in the image of God.

The Book of the Covenant (Exo 20:22-23:19) follows the Ten Commandments. And the theme is that the people have seen that the LORD spoke to them from heaven (Exo 20:22). Enns notes in his commentary (pp.440-441) that the Book follows a pattern beginning with worship (Exo 20:22-26), then social responsibility (Exo 21:1-22:17), then worship and social responsibility (Exo 22:18-23:19). These laws are not exhaustive but representative of the legal code of Israel. They cover such things as (worship) idols and altars, (social responsibility) slavery, injuring others, injuries from animals, and personal property. And the final section with both alternates worship, social responsibility, worship, social responsibility, worship (note that it begins and ends with worship). Loving God and loving your neighbor are thus shown to be intricately related. The last social responsibility section ends with the law about not oppressing a sojourner because you were sojourners in Egypt (Exo 23:9).

Then the text changes focus to the conquest of the Promised Land (Exo 23:20-33). The primary reason for destroying the people in the land is so that they will not cause Israel to sin and thus keep Israel from being a blessing to the nations. Sending terror before Israel and hornets before Israel are parallel ideas (Exo 23:27-28). These are not literal hornets -- the idea is that the people will stand in dread of invading Israel.

And this section ends with the seventy (ten times seven) elders of Israel hearing the Book of the Covenant and seeing God on the mountain (Exo 24:10) and having a covenant meal together (Exo 24:11). Almost makes one think of Passover as the unconditional covenant meal and this meal on the mountain as the conditional covenant meal. And Moses went up on the mountain to receive the Ten Commandments in written form. There is a Sabbath pattern (Exo 24:16) and Moses was on the mountain for a highly significant forty days and forty nights (Exo 24:18). Temptation time.

Labels: book of the covenant, exodus, idolatry, moses, promised land, salvation, ten commandments, thanksgiving, worship

The trip to Sinai starts off with the complaining continuing. We saw the theme of grumbling before the salvation in the Sea of Reeds/Extinction and here we see it again. It is important that it is directed at God and His anointed (Moses) because you will see the same thing happened to His anointed one (Jesus). It all began back when Moses killed the Egyptian and tried to break up a fight amongst the Hebrews. But that grumbling response of the Hebrews was in stark contrast to the reception that Moses had from Jethro's daughters when he saved them (Exodus 2:11-20). In this section we will see Jethro again. This time his reception is in contrast to the grumbling nation of Israel but even more in contrast to the Amalekites. Amalek was the son of Esau's concubine (see our discussion of Genesis 36:12).

The verse after the Song of Miriam mentions that Israel had gone for three days without water in the desert (Exo 15:22). When they finally found water it was bitter (Exo 15:23). So the people grumbled against Moses (Exo 15:24). God turned the bitter water into sweet water. God had Moses throw a log into the water and then the water became sweet (Exo 15:25). This is a picture of the gospel movement from death to life. It is the movement from diseased to healed. The LORD tested them (Exo 15:25). He tells them that if they listen to Him (literally 'listen to the voice of,' which is an idiom for obey) then he will not visit them with the diseases he brought on Egypt (Exo 15:26). Thus if they disobey the plagues will fall upon Israel. This eventually happened and ultimately happened for Christ.

To summarize -- grumbling about water, God tested them.

Then theme of grumbling continues as the word tells us, "And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness" and they accused Moses and Aaron of bringing them into the wilderness to starve when they were full back in Egypt (Exo 16:2-3). They have a selective memory.

And the LORD tested them to see "if they will walk in [His] law or not" with "bread from heaven" (Exo 16:4). On the sixth day they got a double portion but the first five days of the week they would get a day's portion. Since they have accused Moses and Aaron of brining them into the wilderness to starve, Moses tells them that this bread from heaven will show that the LORD brought them out of Egypt and into the wilderness. Moses tells them that they have been grumbling against the LORD. He says, "For what are we, that you grumble against us?" (Exo 16:7). Meat in the evening and bread in the morning will show them that grumbling against Moses and Aaron is really grumbling against the LORD (Exo 16:8). And they got quail in the evening and bread from heaven in the morning. They called the bread from heaven "manna" meaning, "What is it?" because they did not know what it was (Exo 16:15).

The manna was a test because when they tried to keep some left overs they bred worms and stank (Exo 16:20). God was training them to trust Him for their daily bread. And the double portion on the sixth day did keep for the seventh day without going bad so that they could keep Sabbath. It is instructive that they were required to keep Sabbath before the giving of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments was a summary of the law from creation. But that first Sabbath after the Exodus Event they went and tried to gather manna and the LORD said, "How long will you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws?" (Exo 16:28). It is significant that the manna tasted sweet like wafers made with honey because the Promised Land was a land flowing with milk and honey. Thus the manna was a reminder to them of where they were going and of God turning the bitter water sweet. And they kept some manna as a reminder to all generations.

To summarize -- grumbling about food (complaint that they were brought into the wilderness to starve), God tested them.

The next chapter begins with the same grumbling: "the people quarreled with Moses" about water to drink (Exo 17:2). And they again accused him of bringing them into the wilderness to kill them -- this time with thirst. Moses asks them "Why do you test the LORD?" (Exo 17:2). Here Moses brings water from the rock by striking the rock where the LORD was standing.

To summarize -- grumbling about water again (complaint that they were brought into the wilderness to die of thirst), Israel tested God (Exo 17:2 and 17:7).

This is something we see in the gospels as Satan and then the elders and chief priests, etc., all tested Jesus. It is instructive that Moses notes that the people are ready to stone him (Exo 17:4). And because the wilderness wandering began and ended with water coming from a rock (see Numbers) the tradition arose that the rock followed them in the wilderness. Paul tells us, "the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor 10:4). This is not a stretch since we call God our Rock all of the time. Paul says that these examples were written down for us "for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come" (1 Cor 10:11). The lesson is that we should not grumble in our wilderness wandering but know "God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it (1 Cor 10:13). And this Paul ties into idolatry and the Lord's Supper. We are in the wilderness with one big difference -- we are not under God's wrath (compare Psalm 95 and the quote of Psalm 95:7ff in Hebrews 3:7ff).

The other part of this section shows us the contrast between the Amalekites and Jethro. In Exo 17:8, the Amalekites came and attacked but in Exo 18:5-7 Jethro comes and greets. In both Exo 17:9 and 18:25 men are chosen for a specific task. In Exo 17:12, Moses sits on a stone and in Exo 18:13 he sits to judge. Both activities are said to commence on the next day and last all day until evening (Exo 17:12; 18:13-14). And in both Exo 17:12 and 18:18 Moses is said to be tired, with help provided in each instance. See Enns commentary, 367).

The judgment of the LORD on the Amalekites is a total ban -- "Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven" (Exo 17:14). See our comments on Genesis 36:12. Jethro blessed the LORD and showed that he had learned the lesson of the plagues and Exodus event saying, "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods" (Exo 18:11).

At this point Moses had to tell the people the law of God and how it applied to particular situations, he was deciding every case brought before him and Jethro saw that he would get burnt out quickly. So Jethro wisely suggested this: "warn them about the statutes and the laws, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do" and then appoint judges (who "hate a bribe") to decide the easier cases (Exo 18:20-21). This is the climax of the transition to the giving of the law before they arrive at Sinai. The theme of testing Israel has carried the idea throughout this section.

Labels: amalekites, grumbling, jethro, law, manna, plagues, salvation

The plagues and the Exodus Event demonstrate the omnipotence of the true God over the people, livestock, and gods of Egypt. The LORD says, "For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD" (Exo 12:12). And God establishes a statute or ordinance -- the Passover meal. It will be one of the ordinary means of God's grace and salvation until the Passover lamb is slain on the cross. The Gospel of John even understands the fact that the instruction, "do not break any of the bones" (Exo 12:46) with Psalm 34:20 as the reason Christ did not have any bones broken (cf. John 19:36). It is this Passover lamb, who says, this is my body; this is my blood. Thus the Lord's Supper, derived from the Passover meal, is one of the ordinary means of God's grace and salvation today.

And we have an early example of catechizing children: "And when your children say to you, 'What do you mean by this service?' you shall say, 'It is the sacrifice of the LORD's Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he struck the Egyptians but spared our houses'" (Exo 12:26-27). And concerning the feast of unleavened bread, it says, "You shall tell your son on that day, 'It is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt'" (Exo 13:8). This is something that also should continue today as the Lord Christ taught us to teach them to observe everything that he commanded (see Matt 28:20, Great Commission). Baptism being mentioned in the previous verse, what they are to observe especially includes the Lord's Supper. See Flavel's defense of catechizing in my first quotes of Flavel's Exposition of the Assemblies Catechism on this page.

We also see a glimpse of language that will be elaborated in the Shema (Deut 6:4-9) "And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth. For with a strong hand the LORD has brought you out of Egypt" (Exo 13:9). The catechizing continues, "And when in time to come your son asks you, 'What does this mean?' you shall say to him, 'By a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. For when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all the males that first open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem'" (Exo 13:14-15). And the next verse continues the Shema-like language (Exo 13:16).

This Exodus account is very much a continuation of the narrative of Genesis and we see this in the comments fulfilling prophecies of Genesis. In particular, Genesis 15:13-16 says that the people will be "in a land that is not theirs and will be servants [we could say slaves] there" 400 years and come out with great possessions. Then we see Israel plunder Egypt (Exo 12:36) and it is noted that they had lived in Egypt for 430 years (Exo 12:40). And, as in Genesis 1:2, the Spirit hovered over them like He did the waters at creation in the form of the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night (Exo 13:21-22, 14:24). And then we have the parting of the waters by the wind/Spirit to give way to dry land, also just as in Genesis 1:7-9. Israel is born (they even change their calendar to reflect this new creation (Exo 12:2). And thus how beautiful is the description, "Israel saw the great power that the LORD used against the Egyptians, so the people feared the LORD, and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses" (Exo 14:31).

And then we see the Song of Moses, which then Miriam takes up (the repetition of the first line implying that she led the people in singing the whole song too). She led the song, played the tambourine, and all the women danced. This is an interesting example of a prophetess leading worship and proclaiming the good news of salvation in the LORD. Anything that can be said, can be sung, and vice versa. This song was a type of proclamation -- a sermon in verse. And the lesson, fitting what we have said of the purpose of the plagues and the exodus event, is "Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?" (Exo 15:11). And the song foreshadows what will come to pass in the days (and unfortunately years) ahead, as it talks of the inhabitants of Canaan having melted away when they heard.

The principle of the firstborn in the exodus event is most critical in understanding how Jesus' death can cover our sins. It is worth saying that faith in God the Father and in his servant the Lord Christ is the Spirit wrought response of the one who is born again and that this application of salvation depends on the accomplishment of salvation in the death and resurrection of Christ as the firstborn of his people. And that given this accomplishment and application of salvation we too should have our tongues loosed (not because we are drunk, but because of the Spirit) to sing many new songs.

Though things end well, it is ominous that right before the Exodus event the people expressed such unbelief and grumbling saying, "It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness" (Exo 14:12). And Moses tells the people, to best translate the verse, to "Shut up" (Exo 14:14). This foreshadows the rest of the story of the Torah, beginning with the verses immediately following this section (Exo 15:22ff). And is in stark contrast to Jesus who remained silent when accused by the chief priests and elders of Israel rather than complaining.

Labels: catechizing, exodus, feast of unleavened bread, Genesis 1, grumbling, Lord's Supper, miriam, moses, new songs, ordinary means of grace, passover, women

What we want to do here is to begin to observe some of the patterns and to see how the plagues point us back to creation (and thus forward to the new creation), point us forward to the final plague and the Exodus event, and also thus point us forward to the work of Jesus Christ who died the curse of the final plague and began the new creation of the new heavens and earth with His resurrection. You can do the work of seeing Jesus in all of this easily. Pete Enns' commentary and class discussion at WTS is the source for most if not all of these observations.

The snake incident shares some of the characteristics of the plagues and thus we will discuss it here, but the first nine plagues are each a series of three plagues. You know that this is intentional because they follow a pattern. In each series of three plagues the first two have a warning beforehand and the third comes without warning. Moreover, the first warning is always in the morning. And the instructions given to Moses and Aaron follow the pattern of "station yourself" for the first in each series, "go to Pharaoh" for the second in each series, and no formula for the one without warning. And it is also worth observing that you will see that these plagues are comprehensive -- frogs from water, gnats from earth, and flies from the air (for example).

Pharoah's magicians can imitate the plagues through the frogs, close to their strength at the Nile, but they cannot undo any of the plagues. Only God has the power to bring order out of chaos, but at least for the early plagues they are able to imitate these reversals of creation. It is also worth saying that God needs no magician to do these things.

The reason for the plagues is that Israel may know that there is no one like the LORD our God (Exo 8:10) and Israel's protection from their effects is so that they may know that He is the LORD in the midst of the earth (Exo 8:22). And they serve the same purpose for the Egyptians -- so that you may know that there is none like Him in all the earth (Exo 9:14). Other ways this is put include: "so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth" (Exo 9:16), "so that you may know that the earth is the LORD's (Exo 9:29), "that you may know that I am the LORD" (Exo 10:2), and this is the same reason laid out for everything in the book: "the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD" (Exo 14:4) and "you shall know that I am the LORD your God" (Exo 16:12), etc. Thus it is no surprise that the plagues will show us the LORD God as the creator God and show Him defeating the Egyptian pantheon.

While the translation quotes in the paragraph above are from the ESV, for the comments below see the NIV and earlier posts.

The snake incident (Exo 7:8-13) uses a different word for snake or serpent here than it did earlier in Exodus (look back at the instructions). The word here is the same word as "sea monster" from Gen 1:21. The snake was the sign of Egyptian royalty (with their cobra headdress). (As defeats of Pharaoh they were defeats of the one who claimed to be the son of a god.) And it points us forward to the Exodus event because the word "to swallow" is found only here and in Exo 15:12 for the sea swallowing Pharaoh's army.

The plague transforming water into blood (Exo 7:14-25) uses a word sometimes translated reservoirs (Exo 7:19, NIV), which is the same Hebrew word translated "collected mass" in Gen 1:10. It is a rare word. The Nile was a personified deity for Egypt with the name Hapi. Thus the first Egyptian deity is shown to be powerless. The first Pharaoh had used the Nile to try to kill the children of God. All of these water episodes point us to when God will divide the waters again and dry land appear in the Exodus event.

The plague of frogs (Exo 8:1-15) uses the word "to swarm" of Gen 1:28. It is a creation reversal because the animals are ruling instead of man. Heqet, the goddess of childbirth, was drawn with the head of a frog. Thus another false god is exposed as powerless, with the frogs coming from the Nile. And that she is the goddess of childbirth is interesting. It points us to the exodus event because it comes from the Nile and leaves behind the smell of death.

The plague of gnats (Exo 8:16-19) has these insects come from the ground like how man came from the dust (Gen 2:7). The gnats are the princes of Egypt rather than Pharaoh (cf. 1 Sam 2:6-8 and 1 Kings 16:1-3). Man as a result of the curse returns to the dust upon death. Thoughts about death point us to the Exodus event result for Egypt.

The plague of flies (Exo 8:20-32) again shows us the creation reversal motif. The land is left destroyed. There is no known reference to the Egyptian pantheon but the word "destroyed" in Exo 8:24 is the same as the destroyer in Exo 12:23, thus pointing us to the final plague and therefore to the Exodus event.

The plague on the livestock (Exo 9:1-7) again reminds us of Genesis 1 since they were created on the same day as humankind and the latter was to rule over them. Hathor, the mother and sky goddess, was depicted as a cow. Death of these livestock points us to the final plague and thus the Exodus event, which also kills animals (Exo 11:5 and 12:29).

The plague of boils (Exo 9:8-12) is an obvious blight on the creation of man. This was an attack on Pharaoh who made them make bricks. The dust causing the boils is from the kiln. The bricks were kiln-baked bricks. This skin disease would disrupt Egyptian religious practices. This is the first plague damaging human life.

The plague of hail (Exo 9:13-35) affects the plant world. A word for vegetation in Exo 9:22 is in Gen 1:11-12. The god Seth showed himself in wind and storm. The god Min was tied to the harvest schedule. Hail is often a sign of divine judgment and it does kill the humans who are outside.

The plague of locusts (Exo 10:1-20) mentions the rest of the vegetation of Genesis 1. It is a polemic against Isis and Min like the last plague. The locusts come by an east wind, just like the wind that will divide the Sea and the locusts drown in the same sea where "not one survived" (Exo 10:19 and 14:28). It is called a deadly plague and causes darkness foreshadowing the next two plagues.

The plague of darkness (Exo 10:21-29) reverses Genesis 1:3. It is a polemic against Re, the sun god. Pharaoh claimed to be the son of the sun god. Darkness is symbolic of death in Scripture (i.e. Job 17:13, Psa 143:3).

There are ten plagues, thus the tenth plague is the fullness of the plagues. Many of the first nine plagues foreshadowed it. It reverses the creation of man by bringing their death. It is a defeat of the Egyptian god of the dead Osiris. It destroyed the firstborn cattle too. Cattle were venerated in Egyptian religion. Since this is a plague on the firstborn it represents what will happen to all of the Egyptian men who come out after Israel into the Sea of Reeds. It is really part of the Exodus event and foreshadows the rest of what will happen.

Remember that these plagues also ultimately foreshadow the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, there was darkness before His death.

Labels: exodus, false gods, Genesis 1, new creation, pharaoh, plagues, serpent

The Hebrew people are the seed of the woman. Pharaoh is the seed of the serpent. This is fitting since you often see the Pharaohs depicted with a serpent's headdress. The new Pharaoh did not have a good relationship with Joseph or his kinsmen (he did not "know" Joseph) but the irony of ironies is that we do not know the name of this Pharaoh. This is surely intentional because Pharaoh defies God and the seed of the woman first by enslaving the Israelites, then by asking the midwives to kill the Hebrew children, and finally by ordering all of the new children to be thrown into the Nile. But it also reveals a tendency of the book to strategically use or leave out names. The threat of drowning in the Nile points us back to creation where the waters separate and dry land comes forth as well as new creation in the Exodus where the waters separate and dry land appears.

Enter Moses (Exodus 2:1ff). We know something special is about to occur because a Levite married a Levite and she conceived and bore him a son (like John the Baptist in Luke 1:5). This child is being depicted as the firstborn son and literally what she sees is new creation language "that it/he was good" (Exo 2:2) like we saw in Genesis 1. And when she could not hide him any longer she put him in an ark (the same word as the ark that Noah built and both have pitch) and placed him among the reeds. This was a traditional way to introduce a hero, like the Legend of King Sargon of Akkad who also was put in a reed basket treated with bitumen and found by a drawer of water who raised him as her own. We know that Moses will do great things. This story points us forward to the Exodus event in the Sea of Reeds. All you have to do to the word reed in Hebrew is move the dot for the vowel and you have the word extinction. This is the threat of the Nile -- extinction for Israel and this is the threat of the Sea of Reeds, the Sea of Extinction, at the Exodus event. But Moses and Israel will come through these waters as new creation.

Then all of the sudden we find out that despite the earlier portrayal Moses has an older sister. He also has an older brother but this information is conveniently left out. In Exodus 7:7, Moses is eighty and Aaron is eighty-three. So there must be a theological reason that Moses is portrayed as the firstborn son (perhaps the same reason that God would call Israel his firstborn son later in this section). And the account does not tell us anyone's names, not Moses' parents, or sister, or the name of Pharaoh's daughter, because it is driving us to the naming of Moses (2:10). And the explanation of the name is "because I drew him out of the water." Moses puts this theological meaning of his name on the lips of Pharaoh's daughter because she unknowingly points to the Exodus event in naming him something that sounds like "draw out" in Hebrew. In reality, the name Moses in Egyptian means "to give birth to" because she was claiming that he was her own son.

Moses through all of this points us forward to Jesus Christ. Jesus was the firstborn son of Mary and Joseph. He was the seed of the woman. And Herod, the new Pharaoh and seed of the serpent, would try to kill the children under two. But Joseph and Mary would flee the new Egypt (literally Israel, see Matthew 2:15). Jesus went through this Exodus from Egypt now as an individual, again at his baptism as an individual, and later would again on behalf of His people. The last time He did so as the ark of salvation for a greater Exodus.

Moses also went through three exodus events. The first was as an individual being drawn out of the water by the daughter of Pharaoh. The last was the Exodus event of his people. But the other time he went through an exodus as an individual was precipitated by a fight between two Hebrew people. First Moses sees an Egyptian beating a Hebrew and Moses acts as the savior of Israel. This was not murder just as what God would do later was not murder. Moses was acting as God's anointed deliverer ahead of time. And then he saw one of the Hebrews doing the same thing to another one of the Hebrews (the word kill in Exo 2:12, NIV is the same as hit in Exo 2:13, NIV -- see Exo 2:12-13, ESV). And we get a preview of Israel's rebellion and rejection of Moses -- two themes that will continue and will recur for Jesus.

So Moses flees (exodus) to the Midianites (remember it was the Midianites who brought Joseph into Egypt at the start of Book Ten of Genesis). It is not accidental that when Moses delivered Israel by killing the Egpytian they grumbled and when he delivered the daughters of Jethro they sing his praises. Jesus would receive the same kinds of reception from Israel and the Gentiles. And the passage ends with God remembering His covenant, God seeing the people, "and God knew." Pharaoh may not have known Joseph but God knew. This is also an allusion to Sodom (Gen 18:21). God saw and God knew. He was going to come down. And ultimately He did in the person of Jesus Christ.

We have stressed the first two chapters in this post to get you to slow down and see the connections. What follows are some notes on the rest of the section to help you do the same with the other chapters.

First note that the burning bush is a suspension of the normal properties of nature. We are going to see creation reversal and other suspensions of normal properties of nature throughout the book of Exodus.

Second, the name of God, YHWH, was undoubtedly already known to the people of Israel. What is new is the theological explanation of the meaning of the name.

Also, Moses acts as a shepherd, which prepares him to be the shepherd of God's people. The first sign is a snake that Moses must grab in faith -- a snake like Pharaoh. The second sign shows that God can make the unclean Hebrews clean. Moses complains that he is not eloquent. No matter what God does, Moses acts like Israel and grumbles. So as a judgment the office is split in two and Moses shares the glory of God with Aaron. The point of all this is that I Am and not Moses will deliver Israel. And all of these things point us to Jesus.

The genealogy is interesting. It slows down for Levi. Again the names mentioned are significant. The women point us to the focus of the genealogy. Moses is not the focus, Aaron is. This is because Aaron has just been chosen to help Moses. And the genealogy points to Aaron's worthiness by showing his Levitical heritage and that he is the grandfather of Phinehas who would be a hero in Numbers (and later in Joshua).

There is also something significant going on with the age of Moses. Moses was probably forty when he fled Egypt the first time (according to tradition he was), He was eighty when he led the Exodus of Israel (Exo 7:7). Thus Moses spent forty years in the wilderness after his own personal exodus and forty years in the wilderness after the Exodus event. He died at 120 years old (40+40+40).

In any case, this section of Exodus foreshadows the plagues and the Exodus event and therefore also foreshadows the work of Jesus climaxing in His exodus. Thus salvation from the land of Egypt, the house of slavery foreshadows salvation from slavery to sin.

All of my posts on Exodus include things that I originally learned from Dr. Peter Enns about four years ago. I highly suggest that you read his commentary on Exodus in the NIV Application Commentary series. They are more immediately based on my notes on Exodus for a class I taught at Roxborough Presbyterian on how Exodus points us to Jesus. Any mistakes are my own.

Labels: christ, exodus, moses, new creation, pharaoh, seed, serpent

Genesis began with a prologue and then consisted of ten books. The larger structure was one of prologue, narrative, poetry, epilogue. Exodus is not nearly as elaborate in structure. The organizational strategy is best understood thematically: salvation, law, and worship. The section on the salvation of the Israelites from the land of Egypt, the house of slavery is Exodus 1:1-15:21. The section on the law begins with 15:22 and continues through the end of chapter 24. The rest of the book is the section on tabernacle worship.

Exodus begins with a conjunction. The purpose of a conjunction (usually translated "and" in English even when a more specific relationship between the clauses is obvious) is to connect what follows with what came before. Exodus is continuing the story of Book Ten of Genesis. It is not continuing the poetry or the epilogue as much as it is continuing the narrative of Book Ten. Thus the first six Hebrew words of the book are a direct quote from the narrative. More specifically they quote the second telling of the move of Jacob and his family to Egypt in Genesis 46:1-27. The second telling begins with 46:8. "And these are the names of the sons of Israel, the ones who came toward Egypt" (my rough translation). Exodus begins with these identical words and summarizes the rest. Exodus, for example, lists the sons rather than giving the exhaustive list of the sons and their descendants. Both mention that the descendants numbered seventy (seven times ten) and that Joseph was already in Egypt. This is a clear case of recapitulation. Here it serves to tie the entire book of Exodus as a continuation of the narrative of Book Ten of Genesis.

Even though Exodus reports that Joseph and all his brothers and their generation had died, it does not give us another heading like each of the books in Genesis, "These are the generations of..." Instead, the new thing God would do begins with the New Testament Torah: "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matt 1:1). This is the title of the Book of Matthew, not just the genealogy that follows. "The book of the genealogy of" is just another way of translating the Genesis book titles. The gospels are the same kind of genre as the Old Testament Torah books and there are many connections between Exodus and Matthew. Future posts will mention some of them. This difference between the two is very instructive as well. Exodus is highlighting continuity between the story of Genesis and the present circumstances.

Furthermore, the prologue of Genesis (Genesis 1:1-2:3)is the prologue of the entire Torah. So it should not surprise us, especially given how Exodus is a continuation of the Genesis narrative, that there are multiple connections between Exodus and Genesis 1. The first such connection is in Exodus 1:7, which Peter Enns translates, "The Israelites became fruitful and swarmed; they increased in number and became exceedingly strong" (NIVAC on Exodus, 41). The word choice of swarmed is instructive because it can be found in Gen 1:21 and 8:17 for animals to fulfill their creation mandates. The creation mandate for humanity in the image of God (1:28) is being fulfilled by the Israelites. Creation and salvation (new creation) are interrelated in Exodus. Future posts will mention many of these connections to Genesis 1.

Looking backwards to creation points us forwards to the new creation Jesus inaugurates with His resurrection. Looking forward to the Gospel of Matthew, points us forward to the way Jesus brings about a greater salvation than the exodus. It is instructive then that the transfiguration is a discussion with Moses (representing the Torah) and Elijah (representing the prophets). Moses was there at the first exodus. The prophets pointed us forward to a second exodus. And the content of their discussion with Jesus is "his exodus, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem" (Luke 9:31). Thus we will be looking at how the Book of Exodus points to the climax of salvation through Jesus Christ. Once you see how to do this with Exodus you should go back and do this with Genesis too.

Labels: creation, creation mandate, exodus, Genesis, Genesis 1, law, matthew, recapitulation, salvation, tabernacle, torah, worship

Genesis has much more to say about sex and marriage than the creation of woman out of man and the scene at Sodom. Sex and marriage is a theme that can be found throughout the book and the righteous make a lot of mistakes.

The book teaches that sex and marriage are to be enjoyed between one husband and one wife. This may come as a surprise to those who have not studied Genesis carefully because everyone remembers that the patriarchs had multiple wives. Abram not only married Sarai but Sarai gave her servant Hagar to Abram as a wife. Jacob married Leah and Rachel and each of them gave their servant to Jacob as a wife. Thus Jacob had four wives. But this was not God's original design and we can see why when we see the issues of jealousy between wives, competition for children between them, and so forth.

God's original design was for marriage between one man and one woman. And he blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over..." (Gen 1:28). The married couple was blessed to have children and be fruitful and was put in the Garden of Eden (meaning fertility). The first poem in the structure of Book One says, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (Gen 2:23). And the next verse after this says, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). So the original design was that of marriage between one man and one woman. This picture of exclusivity pointed to the relationship the husband and wife as one were to have with our jealous God.

The Book of Genesis on its own terms is very clear about the design of marriage and sex. The third poem in the structure of Book One is a song of revenge by the evil murderer Lamech proclaimed to his two wives. The third part of Book One means to demonstrate the escalation of sin among the seed of the serpent moving from the murderer Cain to the murderer Lamech. It is intentional that Lamech is the first one in Genesis said to have more than one wife. But this is only the beginning. In Book Two the demon possessed kings, the so-called "sons of God," take harems and breed champion giants. They have many more than two wives. It is instructive that the two situations calling for God's judgment in Genesis both have a sexual dimension: harems (answered by the flood) and homosexual rape (answered by the sulfur and fire coming down on Sodom & Gomorrah). This is not to say that there are not other issues involved. But the climax of sin includes harems or homosexual rape.

We saw that the first half of Book Six and all of Book Eight are chiasms. In Book Six there are parallel episodes of Abram/Abraham and his sister/wife Sarai/Sarah (Gen 12:10-20 and Gen 20). In the first story Pharaoh took Sarai as his wife, not knowing that she was Abram's wife. This brought down great plagues on the house of Pharaoh. In the second story Abimelech took Sarah as his wife, not knowing that she was Abraham's wife. God came to him in a dream and said, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife" (Gen 20:3). God explains to Abimelech that he kept him from "sinning against me" (Gen 20:6) by having sexual relations with her because Abimelech was unaware she was married. That the Gentile Abimelech knew before this that it was wrong to take another man's wife as his own wife is clear because he tells Abraham, "You have done to me things that ought not to be done" (Gen 20:9).

In the similar story in Book Eight (Gen 26), Isaac told the men of Abimelech's city that his wife Rebekah was his sister. And Abimelech saw them laughing together and realized, 'like father, like son' and he rebuked Isaac saying, "What is this you have done to us? One of the people might have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us" (Gen 26:10) and then told the men of the city that the death penalty would be the sentence for anyone who touches Isaac or Rebekah. The end of this section tells us that Esau took two Canaanite wives who "made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah" (Gen 26:35). The parallel story in the structure of Book Eight is the rape of Jacob's daughter Dinah (Gen 34). After raping her like a prostitute, Shechem the Canaanite wanted to marry her. As the sons of Jacob said, "He had done an outrageous thing in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing must not be done" (Gen 34:7). Interesting that such a similar phrase appears in Book Six and Eight.

The climax of Book Six (Gen 15:1-16:16 and 17:1-18:15) is complicated by the fact that Abram/Abraham took Hagar the Egyptian as a wife and she gave birth to Ishmael. Later in the book, righteous Lot's fall becomes complete when his two daughters got pregnant by him. They gave birth to Moab (father of the Moabites) and Ben-ammi (father of the Ammonites). He never should have gone into seclusion so that each could not marry a husband (Gen 19:30ff).

In Book Eight, when Jacob had gone to find a wife among his kinsmen, Esau took one of the daughters of Ishmael as a third wife. The text tells us, "When Esau saw that the Canaanite women did not please Isaac his father, Esau went to Ishmael and took as his wife, besides the wives he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham's son, the sister of Nebaioth" (Gen 28:8-9). The solution was not to add another wife: Esau should have never married two wives to begin with and most certainly not two Canaanites under the curse. The comment "besides the wives he had" accents this.

Also in Book Eight, Jacob married Leah and Rachel (Gen 29:1-30) and this caused all kinds of jealousy issues even to the extent that they each gave their servant to Jacob as additional wives. It is instructive that Isaac had sent Jacob to find in Laban's house "a wife from there" not wives (Gen 28:6). Of course, the stress is on the instruction not to take a wife from among the Canaanite women. In any case, the author of Genesis wants the reader to compare Abraham's servant who went to find Isaac a wife and Jacob when he went to find a wife. Jacob wanted Rachel because of her looks instead of praying to God for direction on whom to take as a wife. And as a result of this mess, Jacob ended up with two wives and then four.

The sex and marriage then continues in the epilogue of Book Eight. There we see Rachel die during childbirth and Reuben, Jacob's firstborn and the son of Leah, "went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine" (Gen 35:22). Bilhah was Rachel's servant and this will keep Bilhah from replacing Rachel in the affection of Jacob. Reuben did this for his mother Leah (I am not implying that she knew anything about it ahead of time, nor am I implying that this excuses his sexual sin, I am simply explaining the situation).

Book Ten resumes this theme as Judah sleeps with his daughter-in-law thinking that she is a prostitute (Gen 38), Potiphar's wife tries to seduce Joseph (Gen 39:7) and even includes the theme in the concluding poem as Jacob cursed Reuben in the blessing, "unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence, because you went up to your father's bed; then you defiled it - he went up to my couch" (Gen 49:4). They have knowledge of sexual ethics (language of defiled). Also Joseph's response to Potiphar's wife shows this: "How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" (39:9). But even though they know right and wrong the explicit episode with Judah shows they did not always do the right. In this story, Judah took a Canaanite wife and had three sons. Judah took Tamar as the wife of his first son. But his son was so wicked that God struck him down. So Tamar became the wife of Judah's second son who wasted his semen on the ground because he knew that if he had a child it would not be considered his own. And God struck him down. Judah, afraid the same would happen to the youngest son, sent Tamar away pretending to need to wait for him to grow up. Eventually Judah himself slept with her, not knowing it was her, and she gave birth to twins. She was accused of adultery until it was discovered that the father was Judah himself. The story has a number of similarities with the daughters of Lot narrative.

So the Book of Genesis teaches (through precept and example) that God intends for sex and marriage to be between one husband and one wife for all of humanity and that His people should only marry those not under the curse of Canaan. The consequences of the patriarch's failure to keep this design would last for the rest of the history of Israel. And a sign of sin reaching its height is harems or homosexual rape. Of course, people will try to excuse behavior that does not fit God's intention of sex and marriage between one husband and wife by arguing that the episode at Sodom does not have to do with homosexual behavior but homosexual rape. But such an argument has missed the overall message of Genesis on this theme that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

It is worth noting that marriage is a gift of God's common grace to all of humanity. God defines marriage for all peoples (not just His people) as between one man and one woman. Israel and the nations broke the covenant of creation whenever they allowed variations from this pattern. While this common grace institution was something Canaanites could enjoy, the people of God were prohibited from marrying Canaanites under the curse. Later laws in Scripture would build on this principle by prohibiting believers from marrying any unbeliever. For example, in the New Testament (though the regulation was much older) believers are told to marry in the Lord (1 Cor 7:39, i.e., only marry other believers). There are other laws that would be spelled out in the Torah including regulations about marrying close relatives (including prohibiting marriages between some relationships that are not blood relationships). In the New Testament, for example, Paul rebukes the fornication among the Corinthians not even found among the Gentiles - a son marrying his step-mother (1 Cor 5). The most serious violations of this creation ordinance, short of harems and homosexual rape, are things even the Gentiles know are wrong, and are called things which quite simply ought not to be done (cf. Gen 20:9, 34:7 and Rom 1:28) or things that are contrary to nature, which we have called the covenant of creation (cf. Rom 1:26). Such things include marrying your step-mother, all homosexual behavior, marrying another man's wife, and heterosexual rape. This is why it is so surprising that Christians are debating homosexual marriage, something that even the Gentiles should know is wrong.

Labels: Abimelech, creation ordinance, flood, Genesis, giants, gomorrah, harems, homosexual behavior, lamech's curse, marriage, polygamy, prostitution, rape, sex, sodom

The title: "These are the generations of Jacob" (Gen 37:2) meaning it will be about Jacob's descendants who have come in the fullness (ten) of time because this is Book Ten. In the book, Jacob recedes more into the background so that his twelve sons are the focus (in particular Judah and Joseph).

The structure is somewhat more difficult to discern than earlier books. It generally follows the same pattern as before: narrative, poetry, epilogue. Except this time the poetry is almost a whole chapter of Scripture. Thus the whole book generally follows the pattern prologue (Gen 1:1-2:3), narrative (Gen 2:4-48:22), poetry (Gen 49:1-28), epilogue (Gen 49:29-50:26). The difficulty comes when you see the chiasm excludes the first story Gen 37:3-36. I am calling this the prologue to the book because of its extensive similarities with the epilogue but it also contains a poetic portion that due to the constraints of the story is not put at the end of the prologue. The poetic portion in the prologue is the content of the dreams and the response of his father and brothers. The parallelism of "Are you indeed to reign over us? Or are you indeed to rule over us?" is obvious. This is the central question of the book. Will Judah or Joseph rule over his brothers?

The prologue tells us that the brothers plotted to take Joseph's life because they hated him because Jacob loved him more than them and they hated him even more because he told them these dreams. Reuben interceded for Joseph and convinced the other brothers not to kill him. Judah convinced the other brothers (Reuben unaware) to sell Joseph to some Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. And Jacob mourned the death of Joseph because the evidence the brothers returned with was the multicolor robe looking like an animal had attacked him. And the prologue ends: "Meanwhile the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard" (Gen 37:36).

While no one actually died in the prologue, the epilogue tells us about the deaths of Jacob and Joseph. Jacob gave them instructions for his burial, died and was embalmed, and buried. There was great mourning at his passing just has he had once mourned for Joseph. The brothers feared because of their sin in the prologue, but Joseph reassured them, saying, "Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones" (Gen 50:19-21). Joseph lived to see the third generation of his son Ephraim's children. And he gave all Israel instructions about burying him when they returned to the Promised Land, then he died, and was placed in a coffin in Egypt.

While the prologue shows that Joseph will reign over his brothers and he is still reigning over them until his death in the epilogue, the poetry of Gen 49 seeks to answer the eschatological question. That is, like the poems in earlier books, this one will point us to Christ. We discover in the poetry that the Messiah will not come from Reuben's tribe because Reuben had sex with Jacob's concubine. Simeon and Levi are passed over for the honor because they had responded to their sister Dinah's rape with violence. So this brings us to the fourth son: Judah. And the text tells us, "Judah, your brothers will praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father's sons shall bow down before you" (Gen 49:8). So the answer eschatologically is that Judah will reign over his brothers, not Joseph. After comparing him to a lion's cub, Jacob says, "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples" (Gen 49:10). So not only will his brothers but all peoples will bow down to the Messiah who will come from the tribe of Judah. As for Joseph, Jacob gives him the blessing. For example, he says, "The blessings of your father are mighty beyond the blessings of my parents, up to the bounties of the everlasting hills. May they be on the head of Joseph, and on the brow of him who was set apart from his brothers" (Gen 49:26). So we will have to wait and see Judah replace Joseph because Joseph and not Judah received the blessing.

The first (Gen 38) and last (Gen 48) stories in the narrative section both have to do with two sons by a Gentile where there is an issue about the firstborn status. The former is about Judah and the latter is about Joseph. The episode with Judah is quite explicit. In this story, Judah took a Canaanite wife and had three sons. Judah took Tamar as the wife of his first son. But his son was so wicked that God struck him down. So Tamar became the wife of Judah's second son who wasted his semen on the ground because he knew that if he had a child it would not be considered his own. And God struck him down. Judah, afraid the same would happen to the youngest son, sent Tamar away pretending to need to wait for him to grow up. Eventually Judah himself slept with her, not knowing it was her, and she gave birth to twins. She was accused of adultery until it was discovered that the father was Judah himself. The story has a number of similarities with the daughters of Lot narrative. The question of the firstborn is this: When Tamar was in labor with the twins, one put out a hand and the midwife tied a scarlet cord on his hand and said, "This one came out first" but then he pulled his hand back in and his brother came out first. In Gen 48, Joseph's two sons are by an Egpytian woman and Jacob adopted them as his own children and gave the blessing to the younger of the two brothers (Ephraim).

The second (Gen 39) and second-to-last (Gen 47:13-31) stories are related because in the former Joseph is enslaved in Egypt and in the latter Joseph enslaves all of Egypt. The former is where Potiphar's wife tries to seduce Joseph and because he was unwilling to "do this great wickedness and sin against God" (Gen 39:9) she accused him of doing it and he went from slavery to prison where he ended up in charge of the prisoners. Joseph is compared quite favorably to Judah in this light. In the latter story, Joseph buys everything, even all of the land (except that of Egypt's priests) for Pharaoh so that all of Egypt has become slaves as Joseph was before.

The third (Gen 40-41) and third-to-last (46:28-47:12) stories are related because Joseph saves people through disfavor or favor at Pharaoh's court. In the former, Joseph blesses the nations through disfavor at Pharaoh's court. Here we see him interpreting dreams. In the latter, Joseph saves his family through favor at Pharaoh's court and Jacob blesses Pharaoh.

The fourth (Gen 42-43) and fourth-to-last (Gen 46:1-27) stories have the brothers travel to Egypt. In the former, at first Benjamin did not go but then the brothers minus one went back and brought him too. Also the brothers went to buy grain and bring it back home. Here we see the fulfillment of the prologue's poetry as the brothers bow down before Joseph. In the latter, all of the house of Jacob (not already living there: Joseph and his sons) moved to Egypt. The total number of the household was a highly significant SEVENTY people. Jacob did not have them move to Egypt until after being told to do so by God, who promised to bring them back.

At the center of this chiasm are stories (Gen 44 and 45) where the brothers show their love for one another. In the former, as you might expect by now, Judah is highlighted in particular. And in the latter, Joseph is highlighted in particular. In the previous chapter Judah had promised his father, "I will be a pledge of [Benjamin's] safety. From my hand you shall require him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him before you, then let me bear the blame forever" (Gen 43:9). Joseph tested the brother's love for Benjamin by having him implicated as a thief and Judah stepped up to offer himself in the stead of Benjamin. Judah has come a long way. And we find out in the next story that Joseph has too as he reveals his identity to his brothers and does not seek revenge. Here at the climax we see a theme that Joseph will repeat in the epilogue: "And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. ... And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. So it was not you who sent me here, but God" (Gen 45:5-8).

At the fullness of time came Joseph and his brothers, a full household of seventy. And yet the book points beyond itself, despite these full and complete numbers (10 and 7) Genesis is not complete in and of itself. Joshua the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim (the younger son of Joseph who received Jacob's blessing), would lead the nation into the Promised Land. But when would the ruler of the tribe of Judah arise? Ultimately the poems, and especially the final poem, point beyond the initial circumstances to King David and the coming Messiah Jesus. Jesus would show love for His brothers in His death on the cross.

Labels: benjamin, blessing, chiasm, ephraim, eschatology, jacob, joseph, judah, reign, rule, seventy, tamar, ten

Book Nine is about the descendants of Esau. The really strange thing is that it has two heading statements: "These are the generations of Esau (that is, Edom)" (Gen 36:1) and "These are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir" (Gen 36:9).

The first half of the book ends with the aside "Esau is Edom" (Gen 36:8). This is an obvious example of inclusio, a common feature of biblical narrative. The second narrative also ends with a statement forming an inclusio with the second heading: "these are the chiefs of Edom (that is, Esau, the father of Edom), according to their dwelling places in the land of their possession" (Gen 36:43).

So the structure is this: first heading, first narrative (genealogy), second heading, second narrative (five genealogies in three groups), epilogue. The epilogue serves, like all of the epilogues, as a transition to the next book: "Jacob lived in the land of his father's sojournings, in the land of Canaan" (Gen 37:1). This is in contrast to Esau (that is, Edom) in "the land of their possession" in the hill country of Seir (Gen 36:43). As God retells it in Joshua, "And I gave Esau the hill country of Seir to possess, but Jacob and his children went down to Egypt" (Josh 24:4).

Esau made a mistake marrying any Canaanites, let alone two of them, and then he compounded it by adding a third wife (an Ishmaelite). The author of Genesis shows this cleverly through the use of names. In Gen 26:34 and 28:9 the names are Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite; Basemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite; and Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebaioth. But in Book Nine the names are Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite; Oholibamah, daughter of Anah, granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite; and Basemath, daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebaioth. For example, in Book Nine the first wife "Adah" (the name of the first wife of evil Lamech, the seed of the serpent in Book One) is the daughter of Elon the Hittite when earlier in Genesis the second wife Basemath was the daughter of Elon the Hittite. Another example, in Book Nine the third wife is Basemath, daughter of Ishmael, when earlier in Genesis the second wife Basemath was the daughter of Elon the Hittite and the third wife Mahalath was the daughter of Ishmael. Thus the names in Book Nine are all mixed up to clump the cursed women together. (Waltke shows this with a chart you have to examine).

And he separated himself "from his brother Jacob, for their possessions were too great for them to dwell together, the land of their sojournings could not support them because of their livestock, so Esau settled in the hill country of Seir" (Gen 36:6-8, ESV, punctuation altered). Esau could have settled elsewhere in the Promised Land, but chose to leave. His mistakes set him apart from Jacob who did not marry the cursed women of the land and who sojourned in the Promised Land rather than settling permanently elsewhere.

The second narrative has five genealogies.

The first one begins, "These are the names of Esau's sons" (Gen 36:10). There are twelve grandsons mentioned. Amalek, because he is the son of the concubine Timna, the reader is not to count. Samuel would later command Saul to exterminate the Amalekites, not protected as part of Edom, because of what they did to Israel during the Exodus journey. A descendant who survived was the ancestor of Haman who tried to destroy Israel in the day of Esther.

The second one begins, "These are the chiefs of the sons of Esau" (36:15) and ends, "These are the sons of Esau (that is, Edom), and these are their chiefs" (Gen 36:19). There are fourteen chiefs. The Amalek here is different than the previous genealogy. Each son of Esau follows the same pattern. "The sons of Eliphaz the firstborn of Esau: the chiefs:" (Gen 36:15) and "these are the chiefs of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Adah" (Gen 36:16). "These are the sons of Reuel, Esau's son: the chiefs" and "these are the chiefs of Reuel in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Basemath, Esau's wife" (Gen 36:17). "These are the sons of Oholibamah, Esau's wife: the chiefs" and "these are the chiefs born of Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, Esau's wife" (Gen 36:18). In the middle of the first pair are the names of seven chiefs (Gen 36:15-16). There are four in the middle of the second pair and three in the middle of the third pair. Again, this totals fourteen.

The first two are to be grouped together as the final line says, "These are the sons of Esau (that is, Edom), and these are their chiefs" (Gen 36:19) concludes "These are the names of Esau's sons (Gen 36:10) and "These are the chiefs of the sons of Esau" (Gen 36:15).

The third one begins and ends with an identical list of seven chiefs of the Horites in their line of succession. The rest of the opening and closing are slight variations. "These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan; these are the chiefs of the Horites, the sons of Seir in the land of Edom" (Gen 36:20-21). "These are the chiefs of the Horites: the chiefs Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan; these are the chiefs of the Horites, chief by chief in the land of Seir" (Gen 36:29-30). Between the inclusio, are names of the sons of each chief. The only commentary is "he is the Anah who found the hot springs [translation of "hot springs" is debated, the Targum and Jewish tradition says it means "mules" (he was the first to cross the horse and donkey)] in the wilderness, as he pastured the donkeys of Zibeon his father" (Gen 36:24). Two women are mentioned. The first chief had a sister: Timna, Eliphaz's concubine and Esau's wife Oholibamah was the daughter of chief Anah, the son of chief Zibeon. These Hivites should be cursed (descendants of Canaan) but the text gives us seven chiefs.

The third genealogy stands alone. This political system would become integrated into Edom.

The fourth one begins, "These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites" (Gen 36:31). Each one follows the same pattern: Bela the son of Beor, Jobab the son of Zerah, Husham, Hadad the son of Bedad, Samlah, Shaul, Baal-hanan the son of Achbor, and Hadar. For Bela, it says "reigned in Edom" and for each king thereafter it says "reigned in his place." In the third position most of them mention a city or place the king was from: "the name of his city being Dinhabah," "of Bozrah," "of the land of the Temanites," "the name of his city being Avith," "of Masrekah," "of Rehoboth on the Euphrates," none for the next king, then "the name of his city being Pau." Since they have different capitals this suggests that Edom elected their kings. It is the only such list known in the ANE. In the fourth position is a death statement except for the last one, which says, "his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, daughter of Mezahab" (Gen 36:39). The only commentary in this genealogy was to say concerning Hadad, "who defeated Midian in the country of Moab" (36:35). As Bruce Waltke notes, this shows how great David is when he conquers Edom.

The fifth one begins, "These are the names of the chiefs of Esau, according to their dwelling places, by their names" (Gen 36:40) and ends, "these are the chiefs of Edom (that is, Esau, the father of Edom), according to their dwelling places in the land of their possession" (Gen 36:43). Clearly this genealogy is according to their dwelling places.

The last two are to be grouped together. Book Nine shows the sons and chiefs of Esau developing into the nation of Edom with kings and chiefs. This reflects the later development of Israel (hinted at with such lines as "before any king reigned over the Israelites" (Gen 36:31)). Waltke's commentary is helpful on this point (and was the starting point for all of the reflections of this post).

So what are we to make of this extensive discussion of Esau's descendants? For one thing, despite how they develop we know that one day they will serve their younger brother Israel (fulfilling the first poem of Book Eight). It also means that some of the Canaanites will not be exterminated but serve the true sons of Shem (fulfilling the poetry of Book Three). But looking even further into the future, today these brothers of Israel can be reconciled to their brothers in Christ (fulfilling the first poem of Book Six). Jesus would even heal a Canaanite woman's daughter (Matt 15:21-28).

Labels: amalekites, canaanite, edom, esau, Genesis, horites, inclusio, kings, seir

This book follows the same pattern as the first part of Book Six: prologue, poetry, narrative, poetry, and epilogue. The title is "These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son" (Gen 25:19). This should mean that the book will be about Isaac's descendants, and this is the focus of the book, but like Noah in Book Three the account of Isaac's death is in the epilogue. Book Seven was so short in comparison partly because the author was in a hurry to get to Isaac. But, even so, Isaac is not portrayed very favorably and his life must be pieced together from Books Six and Eight as a result. Instead of Book Eight focusing on Isaac, it will focus on Jacob.

At the center of the prologue (Gen 25:19-22) we find that Isaac prayed for his wife Rebekah because she is barren and YHWH answered the prayer and she conceived (Gen 25:21). This should remind us of the center of the prologue in Book Six: "Now Sarai was barren; she had no child" (Gen 11:30). But this time the barren Rebekah conceives and has twins who are fighting in the womb. The rest of the book will be concerned with which of the twins, Esau or Jacob, will be the heir to the promise.

The epilogue (Gen 35:13-29) follows the same pattern of the two epilogues in Book Six except instead of they arose and went it is God who "went up from him in the place where he had spoken with him" (Gen 35:13). The epilogue also has a genealogy, this one featuring the number twelve as it tells us the twelve sons of Jacob. And it recounts the death and burial of Isaac. Like with Ishmael, the "he died and was gathered to his people" (Gen 35:29) language is used (see the commentary on Book Seven). The epilogue also recounts the death of Rachel as a result of the birth of Benjamin. And it mentions in passing that Reuben "went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine. And Israel heard of it" (Gen 35:22). This is all preparing us for Book Ten.

The first poetic section is in response to Rebekah's prayer since the twins are fighting in her womb, "YHWH said to her, 'Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger" (Gen 25:23). So the poetry right at the beginning indicates that the younger son will be the heir to the promise.

In the second poetic section God says two poems. In the first he gives Jacob (the younger son) the name Israel (Gen 35:10). In the second, He says to Jacob, "I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body. The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your offspring (seed) after you" (Gen 35:11-12). This poem reminds us of the creation mandate "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over..." (Gen 1:28). It was repeated to Noah and his sons "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen 9:1, cf. 9:7). And more immediately, Isaac's words to Jacob "God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples. May he give the blessing of Abraham to you and to your offspring with you, that you may take possession of the land of your sojournings that God gave to Abraham" (Gen 28:3-4). The language of nations/kings also brings to mind God's words as he renamed Sarai as Sarah and Abram as Abraham (Gen 17:6 and 17:16). The creation mandate and the blessing have passed down to Jacob/Israel.

Both poems point us to Jesus Christ as the heir.

As usual, the longest portion is the narrative (Gen 25:19b-35:10). The chiastic arrangement of prologue, poetry, narrative, epilogue sets us up to expect it (as in Book Six) to continue in the narrative. And this is what we find. The first story (Gen 25:24-34) tells us about the birth of Esau (explaining why he is also called Edom) and Jacob. The second born child Jacob was holding Esau's heel when he came out. And the story tells us about Esau selling Jacob his birthright for some stew. The text tells us, "Thus Esau despised his birthright" (Gen 25:34). Jacob will inherit. In the last story (Gen 35:1-10) Jacob professes his faith in the true and living God, telling his household, "Put away the foreign gods that are among you and purify yourselves and change your garments. Then let us arise and go up to Bethel, so that I may make an altar to the God who answers me in the day of my distress and has been with me wherever I have gone" (Gen 35:2-3). And Jacob inherits the blessing.

The second story (Gen 26) is where Isaac pretends that his wife Rebekah is his sister. This follows the same pattern of the similar stories for Abram/Abraham and his sister/wife Sarai/Sarah (Gen 12:10-20 and 20:1-18). We also find out that Esau married two Hittite women who cause problems for his parents. In the parallel place, the second-to-last story (Gen 34) is not one of Jacob pretending one of his wives was his sister but instead Shechem raping Jacob's daughter Dinah. The danger of the stories where the wife pretends to be the sister (though technically Sarai/Sarah is the half-sister of Abram/Abraham) is that someone might lie with her and bring guilt upon the people where they are sojourning. Sexual sin is the issue in both stories. And Simeon and Levi responded by tricking the city to circumcise themselves and killed all the males while they were sore.

The third story (Gen 27:1-28:9) is where Jacob pretends to be Esau and steals the blessing and Esau finds out about it. Also Isaac instructs Jacob to find "and take as your wife...one of the daughters of Laban your mother's brother" (Gen 28:2) and sends him with the blessing. In the parallel place, the third-to-last story (Gen 33) is Jacob's return to Esau and Jacob brings a blessing to Esau.

The fourth story (Gen 28:10-22) is Jacob's ladder with the angels ascending and descending on it. In the context of Genesis, we are to contrast this with the Tower of Babel. In the parallel place (Gen 32) the fourth-to-last story begins, "Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him" (Gen 32:1) and the story ends with Jacob wrestling with God. Between these events Jacob decides to send gifts on ahead of himself to Esau. In both stories God verbally blesses Jacob.

The fifth story (Gen 29:1-30) is where Jacob meets his kinsman Laban and marries Laban's daughters Leah and Rachel. Jacob, the trickster, gets tricked by the one who says, "Surely you are my bone and my flesh" (Gen 29:14) after Jacob told him all about his life. In the parallel place (Gen 31) Jacob and his family say their farewell to Laban after trying to sneak away.

At the center of the chiasm, the sixth story (Gen 29:31-30:24) and the sixth-to-last story (Gen 30:25-43) show us God blessing Jacob with children and livestock.

The sixth story shows us the blessing of children. At first, Leah was fruitful and Rachel was barren because of Jacob's preference for Rachel. Leah gave birth to Jacob's firstborn Reuben. In the epilogue we noted that Reuben had sex with Jacob's concubine Bilhah when Rachel, her master, died. Leah's second and third sons, Simeon and Levi, as we noted, will kill Shechem and all of the people of his city because Shechem raped their sister Dinah. The fourth son was Judah. Then Leah ceased bearing children. Rachel then gave Jacob her servant Bilhah as a concubine. Bilhah bore Dan and Naphtali for Rachel. Leah realized she was no longer having children so she gave her servant Zilpah to Jacob. Zilpah bore Gad and Asher for Leah. Leah, in an episode with mandrakes, conceived another son Issachar and then she had a sixth son Zebulun and a daughter Dinah. "Then God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb. She conceived and bore a son and said, 'God has taken away my reproach.' And she called his name Joseph, saying, 'May the LORD add to me another son!'" (Gen 30:22-24). Taking away reproach is a constant theme in Scripture. Joseph is the last son mentioned in this section. His younger brother Benjamin is born in the epilogue. The effect of doing this is to make Joseph the climax of the blessing of children. This all prepares us for Book Ten.

The sixth-to-last story shows us the blessing of livestock. Jacob proposed that he take all of the speckled and spotted sheep and goats and every black lamb for his wages. But Laban tried to keep Jacob from breeding the sheep and goats to make more by taking all of them and putting them with his sons. So Jacob took "fresh sticks of polar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks" (Gen 30:37) and he put these in the troughs where they drank and those who bred there produced striped, speckled and spotted sheep and goats. And he bred them so that he would have the stronger sheep and goats.

When Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac he passed the test of the conditional covenant of Gen 17. Having passed the test, he had shown that he would continue to keep the law. As God told Isaac in Gen 26:2-5, because Abraham kept the law, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in the seed of Isaac. Isaac is blessed for Abraham's sake (26:24). This blessing God pronounced upon Jacob in Gen 28:13-15 and 32:29 (the fourth parallel stories) and in the second poetic section. Blessed to be a blessing, Jacob was a blessing to Laban (Gen 30:30) and Esau (Gen 33:11). Blessing is the theme of this book. Especially since it goes beyond the verbal blessing of Jacob by Isaac and God to the climax where Jacob is blessed with children and livestock. Jacob responds to the first blessing by making a vow that the LORD shall be his God, the stone would be God's house, and he would tithe his goods (see Gen 28:20-22). After the second blessing, he has a limp because of the place where God touched his hip socket.

But there is one thing left to note about the verbal blessing of the poetic section and the verbal blessing of the fourth-to-last story. In both blessings by God Jacob is renamed Israel. In the former, where Jacob wrestled with God, the reason for his new name is revealed. In the latter, the poetry, it says that he shall no longer be called Jacob, but in practice he continues to be known as both Jacob and Israel.

And another observation about the epilogue. The twelve sons are not mentioned in order of birth by are listed by mother. First, Leah's children, then Rachel's, then Rachel's servant's children, then Leah's servant's children. This chiastic arrangement with Rachel and Rachel's servant in the middle highlights the preference Jacob had for her and points us to Joseph (preparing us for Book Ten). In actual birth-order, Leah was the first mother (for the first five), Rachel's servant was the second mother, Leah's servant was the third mother, then Leah had two more sons and a daughter, and then Rachel had her own two children. Rachel was the last wife to have any children but her own firstborn will have the prominent place of Book Ten despite the fact that Judah should qualify as Jacob's firstborn since Judah's three elder brothers have been disqualified.

Labels: angels, creation mandate, edom, esau, Genesis, isaac, israel, jacob, rape, sex

Here we find the shortest book in Genesis. It is undoubtedly intentional that the shortest books are Books Five and Seven because Book Six is so long and about Abram/Abraham. With a full ten books, we might expect number seven to have a place of special significance. Surprisingly, Book Seven is about the twelve tribes of Ishmael and Book Ten is about the twelve tribes of Israel.

Even in this short passage there is structure. It begins with a title: "These are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's servant, bore to Abraham" (Gen 25:12). The narrative section begins and ends with the following frame: "These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, named in the order of their birth...These are the sons of Ishmael and these are their names, by their villages and by their encampments, twelve princes according to their tribes" (Gen 25:13, 16). The passage, like Book Five, has no poetry, which is fitting since Book Six has three poetic portions. And the epilogue includes the death statement and the comments about where they settled and how they settled over against his kinsmen (Gen 25:17-18).

The title alludes to the previous book in the way it identifies Ishmael: "Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's servant, bore to Abraham" (Gen 25:12). It could have just as easily been entitled "These are the generations of Ishmael" and left out the rest. After all, the readers have just heard the story. [Except that the poetry of Book Six before the epilogue of part one identifies Isaac as the "only son" of Abraham (Gen 22:16). This was before Abraham married Keturah (cf. Gen 25:1).] But the reason for the extended title is to remind us of the climax of the last book and the promises made concerning Ishmael.

Ishmael receives very favorable treatment in Genesis. God made promises concerning him at the center of Book Six (remember the center of the chiasm is these two parts on the covenant: Gen 15-16, 17-18:15). The promise made to Hagar concerning Ishmael: "I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude" (Gen 16:10). The promise made to Abraham concerning Ishmael: "I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation" (Gen 17:20). Ishmael is not the heir to the covenant promises, but because of the prayers of Hagar and Abraham and simply by being close to the covenant he will be blessed. And we find the fulfillment beginning in this passage as Ishmael has twelve princes.

We see Ishmael's blessings in Genesis by virtue of his descendants occupying the seventh book, we see Ishmael's blessings in Genesis because these promises were fulfilled, and we see Ishmael's blessings in the curious death statement: "These are the years of the life of Ishmael: 137 years. He breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people" (Gen 25:17). This last comment has only been made before this concerning Abraham: "Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people" (Gen 25:8). (The next verse mentions that Isaac and Ishmael, Abraham's sons, buried him.) "Gathered to his people" is an idiom for going to the place where the dead go (Hebrew, Sheol; Greek, Hades) but put in a tribal way. In any case, the fact that Ishmael lived 137 years is a blessing.

The epilogue ends with the ominous, "He settled over against all his kinsmen" (Gen 25:18). This brings to mind the prophecy: "He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen" (Gen 16:12).

Fast forwarding to the present, the good news has gone out to the descendants of Ishmael and the God who hears will dwell within His people of every tribe and nation. All the blessings in the heavenly places are for those united to Christ. Many of those whose hands were against the people of God are now numbered among the people of God. It tells us much about God that Genesis spends so much time talking about nations that are not the chosen nation. He cares for and blesses all peoples during this life and that setting of blessing is the context within which we evangelize the nations. And it is said, "All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you; the rams of Nebaioth shall minister to you; they shall come up with acceptance on my altar, and I will beautify my beautiful house" (Isa 60:7). Kedar was the second and Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael. God's people are of every tribe and nation.

Labels: abraham, Genesis, ishmael, kedar, nebaioth

While Books Five and Seven are brief, Book Six makes up for it with volumes of material. While Books Five and Seven contain no poetic section, Book Six makes up for it with three poetic sections. The title of Book Six is "Now these are the generations of Terah" (Gen 11:27), which (as is usually the case) means it is about Terah's descendants. In particular it is about Terah's son Abram (renamed Abraham by God).

There are two parallel halves to the book. In the first half, the pattern of the text is prologue (Gen 11:27b-32), poetry (Gen 12:1-3), narrative (Gen 12:4-22:14), poetry (Gen 22:15-18), and epilogue (Gen 22:19-23:20). This half of the book is a chiasm: prologue answered by epilogue, poetry answered by poetry, and the narrative itself forming a chiasm within this. Also the prologue is a chiasm. As one begins to see when unpacking this text, it is quite structurally elaborate. And the purpose of this half of the book is to focus on Abraham who is clearly superior to Noah and Adam. Book One tells us that Adam was created perfectly righteous and that he fell. Book Three tells us that Noah was created perfectly righteous and that he fell. Noah was celebrated in the ANE by many peoples. Abraham, however, passes the probationary test of sacrificing Isaac. Abraham lived by faith.

The second half of the book focuses on Terah's greatgranddaughter (through Nahor and Bethuel) Rebekah. She too came in the fullness of time as the epilogue for the first half of the book tells us Nahor's eight children and grandson Aram and then mentions that Bethuel fathered Rebekah for number ten. The narrative of the second half of the book (Gen 24:1-59) follows what Waltke would call an alternating structure rather than a chiasm or concentric structure. It thematically moves A, B, C, A', B', C'. It is followed, as we should expect, by poetry (Gen 24:60) and an epilogue (Gen 24:61-25:11).

We can begin by looking at the three sections of poetry in Book Six, since this is the most important part in many respects. The first poem says, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation [1], and I will bless you [2] and make your name great [3], so that you will be a blessing [4]. I will bless those who bless you [5], and him who dishonors you I will curse [6], and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed [7]" (Gen 12:1-3). This seven-fold blessing is a thoroughly complete blessing. And it is worth observing that it is pronounced before Abram did anything solely because of God's sovereign choice.

The second and third poems, falling at the same point in the structure of these halves, both share a similar phrase. The second poem says, "By myself I have sworn, declares YHWH, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice" (Gen 22:16-18, emphasis added). The third poem in the parallel position to poem two says, "Our sister, may you become thousands of ten thousands, and may your offspring possess the gate of those who hate him!" (Gen 24:60, emphasis added). Both poems are poems of blessing. Both stress great numbers of descendants and that the one descendant (the heir of the promise -- the singular seed, the Messiah to come) will possess the gate of those who hate him. He will have victory. It should go without saying for the Christian that all three blessing poems come to fulfillment in the work of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the reason that in Abraham all of the families, clans, and nations of the earth will be blessed.

Next we will look at the prologue and epilogues the same way. The prologue (Gen 11:27-32) through the selective use of vocabulary reveals a chiastic pattern. The genealogical pattern begins in Gen 11:27 and ends in Gen 11:32, Haran (a person, son of Terah) died in Ur of the Chaldeans in Gen 11:28 and Terah left Ur of the Chaldeans for Haran (a place) in Gen 11:31b, Abram and Nahor took wives in Gen 11:29 and Terah took Abram, Lot, and Sarai in Gen 11:31a, and at the center is "Now Sarai was barren; she had no child" (Gen 11:30). This, of course is in tension with the blessing that follows and even when she had a son Isaac he did not yet have a wife in order to have a son of his own yet.

The epilogue for the first half then tells us about Abraham's relocation to Beersheba and resumes the genealogical narrative by telling us about Nahor's ten descendants by Milcah and four descendants by his concubine Reumah (for a total of fourteen descendants mentioned here, we find out for example that Rebekah had a brother named Laban so this is fourteen artificially contrived to show order and the tenth is Rebekah, which is contrived by adding that Kemuel [3] is the father of Aram [4]). It also reports a death, this time it is Sarah.

The first epilogue (Gen 22:19-23:20) follows the following thematic pattern: they arose and went (to Beersheba), genealogy (of Nahor) featuring the number ten, report of a death and burial (Sarah). Interestingly the second epilogue (Gen 24:61-25:11) follows the same thematic pattern: for they arose and went it says, "Then Rebekah and her young women arose and rode on the camels and followed the man. Thus the servant took Rebekah and went his way" (it also reports that this comforted Isaac given his mother's death further tying this text to the other epilogue), there is a genealogy featuring the number ten (Abraham's descendants through his concubine Keturah, with five children or grandchildren of Jokshan and five children of Midian...Keturah had six children rather than four or seven), report of a death and burial (this time Abraham himself). After the burial the epilogue reports that God blessed Isaac and Isaac settled at Beer-lahai-roi. Isaac is the heir of the promise, he is the seed/offspring of the woman. This book from beginning to end is about Terah's descendants but Abraham in particular.

While the prologue, poetry, narrative, poetry, epilogue of the first half of the book forms a chiasm with the narrative at the center, the narrative also continues this chiasmic pattern. It begins by telling us about Abram building altars at the oak of Moreh at Shechem and at Bethel (Gen 12:4-9). And the narrative section ends with Abraham building an altar to sacrifice Isaac upon (Gen 21:1-22:14, in particular see Gen 22:9). The first section deals with the promise of land and the last with the promise of the seed.

The second story and the second-to-last story have to do with Sarai/Sarah the sister/wife of Abram/Abraham and the same six things happen in order (Gen 12:10-20 and 20:1-18). 1. There is a famine, so Abram/Abraham sojourned elsewhere (Egypt and Gerar) 2. Abram/Abraham says Sarai/Sarah is his sister. 3. The Pharaoh/king took Sarai/Sarah. 4. YHWH confronts the Pharaoh/king 5. Pharoah/king confronts Abram/Abraham. And the sixth thing is the conclusion of the episode. The second time this happens Abraham tells us that Sarai/Sarah is indeed his sister as they share Terah as their father but have different mothers (Gen 20:12). This book is truly about the descendants of Terah.

The third story and the third-to-last story are about Abram/Abraham rescuing his nephew Lot (Gen 13:1-18 and 19:1-38). The first time this happens Lot settles in Sodom and separates himself from the righteous Abraham. The second time this happens lot is fleeing from Sodom for Zoar because the two angels found him to be a righteous man but the story also relates his fall (like Adam and Noah before him). The first time is a chiasmic pattern beginning with Abram going to the place where he had built an altar "at the first" and ending with Abram settling by the oaks of Mamre at Hebron and building an altar. The second thing in this chiasm is Abram telling Lot, "Is not the whole land before you?" (Gen 13:9) and YHWH telling Abram that the whole land that he can see will be the possession of Abram and his seed/offspring. And the center of the chiasm is Lot separating from Abraham and settling at Sodom. The text tells us, "Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against YHWH" (Gen 13:13). This is a fall for Lot. The second time Lot shows hospitality to the two angels and protects them from the men of Sodom. Abraham's prayer of intercession is remembered (Gen 19:29) and the angels spare the righteous man Lot (but not the city because ten righteous men are not found). But Lot experiences another fall. The second time his two daughters got him drunk (like Noah was drunk) and slept with him producing the Moabites and Ammonites. Thus Noah and Lot are unfavorably compared to Abraham in Genesis but while Noah is the heir of the promise the Moabites and Ammonites will not inherit the promise.

The fourth and the fourth-to-last stories concern Abraham fulfilling his kingly and prophetic offices (Gen 14:1-24 and 18:16-33). In both stories Abram/Abraham intercedes for Sodom and Lot. The first time like a king Abram intercedes militarily to free Lot who has been taken captive. Abraham gives a tenth of the spoils to Melchizedek ("king of righteousness"), king of Salem and priest of God Most High. Abraham's victory was a victory on behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah. The second time Abraham interceded as a prophet for Sodom and Lot and asked God to spare the city of Sodom if it meant sweeping away the righteous with the wicked. At the end, YHWH promises to spare them if ten righteous persons are found. Prayer of intercession is the role of the prophet. And Abram knows that Lot lives at Sodom and is interceding on his behalf.

At the center of this chiasmic or concentric pattern is the covenant with Abram/Abraham (Gen 15:1-16:16 and 17:1-18:15). Since this is the center/focus of the chiasm we will need to slow down here and be more observant.

It has been argued that the first of these two stories can be divided into three parts. The first two have an alternating structure and the third part has a chiastic structure. The first part (Gen 15:1-21) uses vocabulary and themes for the alternating structure stressing the promise of a seed (15:1-6) and then the promise of the land (Gen 15:7-21). YHWH says, "I am your shield" to Abram (Gen 15:1) and then He says to Abram, "I am YHWH who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give to you this land to possess" (Gen 15:7). Then Abram replies using "O Lord YHWH" (Gen 15:2-3 and 15:8). And thirdly, YHWH gives Abraham a sign -- first the stars for the number of seed/offspring (Gen 15:4-6) and then "a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces" of the sacrifice for the land (Gen 15:9-21). The most developed is the third third with this smoking fire pot and flaming torch representing YHWH. He was swearing an oath that Abram's seed would inherit the land or God would be torn apart like these animals (a picture of what would happen with the death of Jesus Christ on the cross). Normally during covenant making the vassal and not the sovereign would walk through the pieces to indicate what would come if they failed to keep covenant. One of the most fascinating comments of this text prophesying the sojourn of Israel in Egypt is "And they shall come back here in the fourth generation [about four hundred years according to verse 13], for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete" (Gen 15:16). God allows sin to reach a climax before judgment comes (counting even the sins of previous generations that have gone on) to the Canaanites just as he did with the flood (Book Two describes sin reaching climax and mentions that it will be 120 years before the flood). Another pattern to notice is the number of nations mentioned in verses 19-21 is ten. The land will fully be for Abraham's seed.

The second part of the first story also follows an alternating structure (Gen 16:1-6). It begins with Sarai telling Abram to obtain children by her Egyptian servant Hagar (16:1-2) and then Sarai is speaking quite differently in the parallel position when she tells Abram "may the wrong done to me be on you!" (Gen 16:5). The second position has to do with Abram obeying Sarai: "And Abram listened to the voice of [an idiom meaning obeyed] Sarai" (Gen 16:2c) and "Abram said to Sarai, 'Behold, your servant is in your power; do to her as you please" (Gen 16:6). The third and fourth positions have to do with Sarai giving Hagar to Abram as a wife (Gen 16:3) and Hagar conceiving and looking with contempt on Sarai (Gen 16:4) and Sarai dealing harshly with Hagar (Gen 16:6b) and Hagar fleeing (Gen 16:6c). We know that things are going to go wrong as soon as Abram takes a second wife and this mistake will be a thorn in the side of Israel.

The third part of the first story follows a chiasmic structure (Gen 16:7-16) with the angel of YHWH's blessings of Hagar at the center. The first blessing is one of multiplication of offspring: "I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude" (Gen 16:10) and the second blessing is of one seed in particular -- her son Ishmael: "Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because YHWH has listened to your affliction. He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen" (Gen 16:11-12). Indeed, he will be a thorn in the side of Israel. The third part of the first story begins and ends mentioning water -- a "spring of water" (Gen 16:7) and a well (Gen 16:14-16). In the second position is Hagar's interaction with the angel of YHWH. YHWH questions her and rebukes her (Gen 16:8-9), like we have seen repeatedly in Genesis, and she acknowledges that YHWH looks after her (Gen 16:13).

In the parallel position to Gen 15:1-16:16 at the center of the largest chiasm is Gen 17:1-18:15. The usual strategy for explaining Genesis (usually with the objective of casting doubt on the text's truth) is to explain recapitulation in the text as having arisen from different sources, different titles for God reflect different sources, two stories about Abraham telling kings that his wife is his sister as reflecting different sources, etc. The solution has always been -- this just reflects different sources. The approach of this commentary I have been doing has been to see how regardless of the sources this work is a well crafted and intentional whole as we now have it. If you were reading this part of Genesis and came upon this account of establishing the covenant your first thought might be -- does this arise from a different source because I remember something similar already took place. So instead of this approach, I want you to see that the establishment of the covenant is at the center of this narrative and indeed this half of the book. We saw this especially with the first part of Genesis 15:1-21 (with Gen 16:1-16) and now we will see this with especially the first part of Genesis 17 (with Gen 18:1-15).

On Genesis 17: YHWH appears to the 99 year old Abram, tells him to "walk before me, and be blameless" (Gen 17:1, calling to mind the description of Enoch and Noah) and renames him Abraham: "No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations" (Gen 17:5). And the blessing is that God will make him into nations and that kings will come from him (Gen 17:6). This is an alternating structure with Gen 17:1-8 paralleling Gen 17:15-22. In the parallel portion God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name" (Gen 17:15) and it is also said that "she shall become nations [and] kings of peoples shall come from her" (Gen 17:16). Both texts talk about an everlasting covenant God is making with Abraham. Thus from Genesis 17:1ff, Abram is now Abraham and Sarai is now Sarah which is why in comparing every portion of the chiasm we have been saying Abram/Abraham and Sarai/Sarah because the first half of this half of the book goes by the old name and the second half of this half of the book goes by the new name. And both Genesis 15-16 and 17 deal with the place of Ishmael. Here God reveals to Abraham that Ishmael will father twelve princes and is blessed and will multiply greatly (Gen 17:20). But the covenant will be with Isaac.

The second part of the alternating structure of Gen 17 deals with the cutting of circumcision (Gen 17:9-14 and 17:23-27). The sign of the covenant (Gen 17:11) is circumcision and the instructions concerning it are in Gen 17:9-14) and the fulfillment of those instructions for Abraham's household are described in Gen 17:23-27. Abraham and Ishmael and the male servants and any other males in the household were circumcised.

Gen 18 is somewhat parallel in content to Gen 17. Abraham laughs in Gen 17 and Sarah in Gen 18. The birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah is prophesied by YHWH in both. And Abraham showed great hospitality to YHWH and the two angels who met him at the altar Abraham made at the oaks of Mamre (cf. Gen 13:18 and 18:1).

Before we leave this half of the book I want to observe one more difference (besides the names Abram/Abraham and Sarai/Sarah) between everything on the upward swing of the chiasm (Gen 11:27b-16:16) and everything on the downward swing of the chiasm (Gen 17:1-23:20). The first half is unconditional. And the second half was conditional. The sevenfold poetic blessing of Abram (Gen 12:1-3) was unconditional and 100% the work of God. The second poetic blessing of Abraham (Gen 22:16-18) was based on Abraham's work (his 100%) passing the probationary test "because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son" (Gen 22:16) and "because you have obeyed my voice" (Gen 22:18). This is also very pronounced in the central sections of the chiasm on the covenant. In Gen 15 the covenant is unconditional and received by faith (justification by faith): "And [Abram] believed YHWH, and he counted it to him as righteousness" (Gen 15:6). Moreover, the sign of the covenant in Gen 15 is the stars and the smoking fire & flaming torch that passed through the pieces of the sacrifices. This is the 100% God. In Gen 17 the covenant is conditional (on keeping covenant, cf. Gen 17:14) Abram is told to "walk before me, and be blameless" (Gen 17:1) and the sign of the covenant is circumcision. This is the 100% Abraham. Then we need to take this to Jesus. The unconditional covenant with Abraham continues (100% God). Jesus passed the test and satisfied the terms of the conditional new covenant and established it (100% Jesus). We then continue to keep the terms of the new covenant (He kept perfectly for us) with the sign of baptism (100% the Spirit leading us to walk in the steps God prepared beforehand).

All that is left to examine then is the narrative for the second half of Book Six (Gen 24:1-59) which follows an alternating pattern. An alternating pattern should almost be expected simply because the servant has to repeat the story for Abraham's kinsmen of Nahor. In the first position it is said that Abraham has been blessed by YHWH and the servant asks what should he do if the woman he is seeking for Isaac's wife is not willing to come back with him (Gen 24:1-10). In the parallel place, the servant tells Laban and Bethuel that YHWH has blessed Abraham and that he asked Abraham what to do if the woman was not willing to return with him. The only difference is that the servant wisely did not relate that Abraham forbid him to take Isaac back there to get his bride. Most important here is that Isaac's bride cannot be a Canaanite under the curse.

In the second position we see the servant's prayer spoken and fulfilled (Gen 24:11-27) and then retold (Gen 24:42-49). The only substantive thing not repeated the second time is the comment: "The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a maiden whom no man had known" (Gen 24:16). He prayed that God would reveal to Him the ideal wife for Isaac and God did. This is in stark contrast with Jacob who later went for Rachel because she "was beautiful in form and appearance" (Gen 29:17) but without a test of her hospitality. And we will see from the third position that Laban never changed -- he liked money and riches -- Abraham was wise not to allow Isaac to go to his kinsmen.

In the third position we see expensive gifts shown to Laban and that the servant is in a hurry and not to be delayed (Gen 24:28-33 and 24:50-59). The expensive gifts Laban sees the first time are the gold ring weighing half a shekel and the two bracelets for her arms weighing ten gold shekels (Gen 24:22 and 30). And the servant was in a hurry to speak before sitting down to eat (Gen 24:33). The expensive gifts Laban sees the second time are, "The servant brought out jewelry of silver and gold, and garments, and gave them to Rebekah. He also gave to her brother and to her mother costly ornaments" (Gen 24:53). And the servant was in a hurry to leave with Rebekah to return to Abraham but her brother Laban and mother wanted to delay for at least ten days (Gen 24:55-58).

At the center of this alternating pattern was God showing Rebekah to be the one for Isaac.

This has been the longest book thus far in Genesis but hopefully this will seeing connections you never noticed before and lead you to appreciate it even more. Like the books before it, this is history told artistically and we need to see the beauty of the art in order to better interpret and understand the history of salvation.

Labels: abraham, ammonites, blessing, chiasm, covenant, gate, Genesis, gomorrah, ishmael, justification, lot, moabites, rebekah, sarah, seed, sodom

The title of Book Five is "These are the generations of Shem" (Gen 11:10). It is considerably shorter than any book we have seen and it is missing the poetry and epilogue. The text is in a hurry to get to Abram.

The royal genealogy follows the pattern we saw in the royal genealogy of Book Two, with one major departure: it is missing the summary/death statement for each: 'Thus all the days of ____ were ___ years, and he died." The only significance it seems appropriate to conclude from this omission is that the pattern has been shortened to get to Abram. Especially since this summary/death statement is used in the next book for Terah in order to focus on Abram.

A second difference with the royal genealogy of Book Two is that in Book Five there is no significance attributed to number seven. In Book Two there was a departure from the pattern to highlight Enoch, but there is no such departure from the pattern for Serug. Again the brevity does not tell us whether number seven was just simply not noteworthy or anything about him, but it does reinforce this picture of wanting to move quickly to Abram.

A third difference with the royal genealogy of Book Two and the other genealogies is that the three sons usually belong to the plus one generation. For the evil Lamech in Book One, number seven in that genealogy, the eighth generation had three sons. For Noah in Book Two, number ten in that genealogy, the eleventh generation had three sons. But here the tenth generation is the one with the three sons: Abram, Nahor, and Haran. The LXX adds Cainan as the son of Arpachshad and father of Shelah. But this addition to the last book would have made seventy-one nations rather than seventy and here would highlight Terah rather than Abram. Book Five wants to highlight Abram as having come in the fullness (ten) of time.

The lifespans are considerably shorter in Book Five compared to Book Two, suggesting that life is more difficult post-flood. I am unaware of any other significance to these numbers. This may be significant in and of itself.

This royal genealogy, like that of Book Two (which ignores the Cain and Abel story), tells us the legitimate heirs of the promise. It does not tell us about Peleg's non-elect brother Joktan mentioned in the last book. All of the focus is on the heirs to the promise. But Scripture as a whole does not speak too favorably of the generations leading up to Abraham who came in the fullness of time. Joshua tells us, "Long ago, your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates, Terah, the father of Abraham and of Nahor; and they served other gods" (Joshua 24:2).

The next book will begin with some recapitulation and adds Lot: "Now these are the generations of Terah. Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot" (Gen 11:27) and does include the summary/death statement for Terah, "The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran" (Gen 11:32) so that the book can focus on Abram, Nahor, and Lot.

Thus in the fullness of time, came Abram, Nahor and Haran. Now we will see God choose Abram to bless.

Labels: abraham, Genesis, recapitulation, royal genealogy, ten

The fourth book begins with the title, "These are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth" (Gen 10:1). So this book will be about the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. But interestingly in the opposite order: Japheth, Ham, and Shem from those furthest from Israel to those closest to Israel. Israel descends from Shem through Peleg. But the Shemites (Semites, those who are Semitic peoples) genealogy here traces through Peleg's brother Joktan. The comment "for in his days the earth was divided" (Gen 10:25) refers to the split of the descendants of Shem between elect descendants of Peleg and non-elect descendants of his brother Joktan. This book is about the non-elect descendants of Noah through his sons Japheth, Ham, and Shem. The next book will tell us about the elect line of Shem through Peleg.

Book Four continues with the same pattern as earlier books. Gen 10:2-32 consists of three genealogies with commentary and Gen 11:1-5 is the story of building the tower of Babel. So this entire section we have been calling narrative. Gen 11:6-7 is the poetry and Gen 11:8-9 is the epilogue.

Like the other genealogies we have encountered, noticing the patterns will help us. There are fourteen nations from Japheth (seven times two), thirty from Ham, and twenty-six from Shem for a total of seventy nations. Seventy is a highly symbolic number (being seven times ten) suggesting that the genealogy is highly stylized to make a point through numbers. The text is also in a framework. Each one begins, "The sons of [Japheth, Ham, or Shem]" and each one ends in a similar way "each with his own language, by their clans, in their nations" (Gen 10:5), "by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations" (Gen 10:20 and 10:31). Thus the genealogy will divide these descendants by their politics, language, geography, and ethnicity. Some of these names are people groups, others are people, and some are place names. "Sons of" or "fathered" may indicate political, linguistic, geographical, or ethnic relationships. Two names are repeated Havilah and Sheba. These places may have elements descending from Cush and Joktan. Waltke, citing others, makes these observations. The whole table has a framework, beginning with "Sons were born to them after the flood" (10:1) and ending with "These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations, and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood" (Gen 10:32).

Japheth's genealogy is stylized around sevens. He has seven sons and seven grandsons mentioned. This suggests order. The commentary, "From these the coastland peoples spread in their lands" (Gen 10:5) means to stress their distance from Israel.

The sons of Ham are closer to Israel. There are five sons of Cush and two grandsons through Raamah for a total of seven. This suggests order. Egypt has seven sons (do not count the Philistines as the mention of them is parenthetical) again suggesting order. But Canaan, the son of Ham cursed by Noah in the poetry of the last book, has eleven sons suggesting disorder.

There are two portions of commentary in the Ham section. The first says, "Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before YHWH. Therefore it is said, 'Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before YHWH.' The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went into Assyria and built Ninevah, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen between Ninevah and Calah: that is the great city" (Gen 10:8-12). This is an interesting addition. Nimrod is not numbered among the seven sons. Cush fathered Nimrod could mean, as with all genealogies in Scripture, Cush is the ancestor of Nimrod. He is a mighty man or champion warrior king reminiscent of the giants. His kingdom included Assyria (Ninevah as the major city) and the land of Shinar (including Babel). That is, his kingdom included the two nations (the Assyrians and Babylonians) that would take Israel and Judah into captivity. And Babylon (the land of Shinar, Gen 11:2) is where the Tower of Babel was being built. Thus this addition would be a great assurance to the people during captivity.

The other commentary in the Ham section says, "Afterwards, the clans of the Canaanites dispersed. And the territory of the Canaanites extended from Sidon in the direction of Gerar as far as Gaza, and in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha" (Gen 10:18d-19). This commentary deals with the more immediate concern of Genesis about the Canaanites who are under the curse of God and prepares us for the episodes with Sodom and Gomorrah. It is clear based on both comments that the descendants of Canaan are closer than Japheth to Israel and that they are the source of Israel's biggest strife.

The third section includes text before the standard "The sons of..." It says, "To Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, children were born" (Gen 10:21). Perhaps we should see the number twelve (like the twelve tribes of Israel). Especially when we remember the elastic use of the word "sons" (as this opening phrase alerts us "the father of all the children of Eber" since Eber is not his immediate son but a descendant), Peleg would be the twelfth son of Shem (or better yet Peleg is the fourteenth distinct name if you count Shem and Japeth in Gen 10:21). And for the sons of Eber through Joktan (including Joktan) there are fourteen (seven times two) . This suggests order. So the three sections of the genealogy considered together serve to highlight the disorder of Canaan.

We have already discussed the first comment in the third section "for in his days the earth was divided" (Gen 10:25) though I will have more to say later about it. The second comment in this section is: "The territory in which they lived extended from Mesha in the direction of the Sephar to the hill country of the east." This just means to communicate that they are close to Israel geographically but separated from Israel. This genealogy serves to tie the non-elect Shemites to the story of the tower of Babel.

But while these peoples would all have their own languages this was not originally the case. The narrative tells us that the whole earth had one language and the same words (Gen 11:1). And they decided to build a ziggurat tower climbing into the heavens. So YHWH came down to them in judgment. The stated reason for building the tower was: "let us make a name [Shem] for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth" (Gen 11:4). God was going to make a name (shem) for His people of the line of Shem. But these non-elect descendants of Noah tried to make a name for themselves.

One must confess that this book is one of the hardest in Genesis to understand. The poetry is the most difficult. The increased use of parallelism tips us off that this is poetic. One people//one language. This is only the beginning of what they will do//Nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Let us confuse their language//so they may not understand one another's speech. The middle pair seems to be the focus. What exactly does it mean that God says, "nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them" (Gen 11:6)? It reminds us of the language of the epilogue in Genesis 3 (complete with God's discussion with His "us"). We, God says in His heavenly council, need to stop man before he does something to keep salvation from being possible.

The epilogue begins and ends saying, "YHWH dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth" (Gen 11:8) and "from there YHWH dispersed them over the face of all the earth" (Gen 11:9). The comment in the middle "they left off building the city therefore its name (shem) was called Babel, because YHWH confused the language of all the earth" is interesting. Babel sounds like babbling -- confusion. They had set out to make a name (shem) for themselves but the city gets the name (shem) of confusion. Their plans were frustrated. They never finished the city...as St. Augustine said, "the city never reached the kind of completion that the pride of impious men had dreamed." Or as Waltke puts it, "The Tower of Babel story lampoons this boast [that Babylon is the religious center of the world]. To its founders "Babel" meant "gate/residence of the gods." but the narrator parodies that significance by a Hebrew by-form bll, meaning "confused" (cf. English, "a babel of voices"). Its builders think their temple tower reaches into heaven; it is so low that the Lord has to descend from heaven just to see it!" (178). It is not finished because it can never get them to God.

Chronologically the narrative of Gen 11:1ff, poetry and epilogue belong before the royal genealogy. Thus Ephrem the Syrian, as quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (same source as the Augustine quote above) , said, "Because of their new languages, which made them foreigners to each other and incapable of understanding one another, war broke out among them on account of the divisions that the languages brought among them. Thus war broke out among those who had been building that fortified city out of fear of others. And all those who had been keeping themselves away from the city were scattered throughout the entire earth. It was Nimrod who scattered them. It was he who seized Babel and became its first ruler. If Nimrod had not scattered them each to his own place, he would not have been able to take that place where they all had lived before." This is an interesting attempt at harmonizing the genealogy and the rest of the book. While we should avoid assuming that Ephrem is correct in the details, his impulse is right. We need to remember that the reason the descendants of Japheth, Ham, and Shem in the genealogy live in different places is the result of being dispersed throughout the land after the attempt to build the city and tower of Babel. This division of the land between the seventy nations took place when Peleg was living ("for in his days the earth was divided") and divided Peleg from his brother Joktan (because Joktan was associated with the tower). And it is in this context that Nimrod conquered the lands of Babylon and Assyria and built his empire and built cities in the image of the original Babel. The text is dischronologized because of the structure of the genealogy and the overall structure of title, genealogy/narrative, poetry, epilogue.

The concern of this book is the salvation of the nations. They have been given their inheritance and are governed by God, whether they admit it or not. And the poetic curse is designed to pave the way for their future salvation through the seed of Abraham. This is the salvation accomplished by none other than Jesus Christ. As the author of Revelation tells us, "By your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation" (Rev 5:9) and we see that all authority over every tribe, people, language, and nation had been given to the beast (Rev 13:8) and that an angel had "an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people" (Rev 14:6). The similarity to our book in Genesis is not accidental. For one thing, tribe is the same word as clan. The salvation Jesus accomplished is for the elect of every tribal/clan/political faction, every tongue, every people/nation, and every ethnicity. And this is what the epistles of Paul mean when they say things like "The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people" (Titus 2:11). Paul does not mean that Jesus has saved everyone but that the salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ was for all kinds of people -- people of every clan, language, people, and ethnicity (Jews and Gentiles/nations). (translation used was ESV with minor changes)

Labels: assyria, babylon, election, Genesis, gomorrah, royal genealogy, seventy, shem, sodom, tower of babel, ziggurat

Even though Book Three is much longer than Book Two, it follows the same pattern. It begins with the title "These are the generations of Noah" (Gen 6:9). The book should focus on the descendants of Noah with such a title, but the last book did not record his death so that this book could tell us what happened in the fullness of time. The narrative section begins "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God" (Gen 6:9). Thus both numbers seven and ten in the royal genealogy of Book Two's narrative are now described as having "walked with God." The narrative of Book Three continues until Gen 9:24. The pattern then finishes out with the poetic curse of Canaan and blessing of Shem (Gen 9:25-27) and an epilogue reminiscent of the pattern found in the royal genealogy of Book Two: "After the flood Noah lived 350 years. All the days of Noah were 950 years, and he died" (Gen 9:28-29).

The narrative follows a chiastic structure natural to a flood story because of the flood rising and receding. In a chiasm the first thing said and the last thing said are parallel conceptually or thematically and the second thing said and the second to last thing said are parallel conceptually or thematically and so forth. Chiasms can be very elaborate or very simple. This one is very complicated. The Scriptures use chiasms as a way to organize stories repeatedly. Sometimes scholars have been tempted to see them where they do not exist. But this story is artificially crafted to maintain the chiasm's structure. We know the chiasm is intentional and not just an accident of flood story-telling because on the way to the climax we see one week described two times (Gen 7:4-5 and 6-10) and in the parallel position after the climax we see three weeks described two times (Gen 8:10-11 and 12-13). The first is one week described as if two weeks by simply repeating that the rain will begin in one week (Gen 7:4 and 10). The second is a time period of three weeks described as if two weeks because there is a week that he waited before sending out the dove (Gen 8:10), he waited another seven days and again sent out the dove (Gen 8:10), and then he waited another seven days and sent forth the dove (Gen 8:12). But clearly the way it is written these three weeks sound like two weeks. So the author wants us to read the story as a chiasm. I am indebted to Tremper Longman III for this observation in his article in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic (see p.142).

The climax of a chiasm is at the center. In the flood chiasm the center is: "But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark..." (Gen 8:1-3). The language of remembering is language for resurrection. The flood story is a death and resurrection story. But this resurrection falls short of the one it points forward to -- as the narrative analogy demonstrates.

The story develops a narrative analogy or recapitulation (Sailhamer shows this) between the creation and fall narratives and the flood story. The flood is a creation-reversal. Thus when the flood recedes we see similarities with the creation story. So we see a new creation. At first the waters cover everything. Then the tops of the mountains were seen (Gen 1:9 and 8:5). The dove brings back a freshly plucked olive leaf (the earth brought forth vegetation, Gen 1:11 and 8:11). God blesses the animals and tells them to be fruitful and multiply on the earth (i.e. Gen 1:22 for birds, Gen 8:17). Man is blessed and to rule over the creation (Gen 1:28b, 9:1-2) and told that he can eat (Gen 1:29, 9:3). Man is told to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28, 9:7). Adam and Noah both have three sons. Adam has Cain, Abel, and Seth (Gen 4:1-2, 25); Noah has Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Gen 9:18-19). YHWH God planted a garden for Adam (Gen 2:8) and Noah planted a vineyard (Gen 9:20).

Then we see the recapitulation of the fall narrative. Adam and Eve ate of the tree they had been commanded not to eat from (Gen 3:6) and Noah drank the wine and became drunk (Gen 9:21). Adam and Eve knew they were naked (Gen 3:7) and Noah "lay uncovered in his tent" (Gen 9:21). Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together for aprons (Gen 3:7) and Shem and Japheth took a garment and walked backwards to cover Noah's nakedness (Gen 9:23). And then YHWH cursed the serpent (Gen 3:14-15) and Noah cursed Canaan (Gen 9:25-27). Therefore, we learn that things before and after the fall are remarkably the same. The people still need a Savior from sin. Noah is one of many Christs (anointed ones) in Scripture who through their sin will point us to the need for Jesus. Noah's resurrection does not change hearts. The curse still holds sway over this new creation.

To return for a moment to the subject of the narrative analogy with Genesis 1: the text, like Genesis 1, uses ANE cosmology to describe the flood. The picture is one where the deep wells up like fountains and the waters above the firmament are allowed to pour through the windows in the firmament. The firmament had been created to hold back these waters. The firmament is a hard structure to which the sun, moon, and stars are attached. In this cosmology, when one looks up in the sky and sees blue they are seeing the waters on the other side of the firmament. The author of Genesis has shown us that he knows about clouds forming and watering the earth (Gen 2:5-6 as translated by Kline) but here describes the water coming down from above with the ANE cosmology by saying the windows of the heavens were opened (Gen 7:11) and closed (Gen 8:2). We should expect the author of Genesis to do this. And this in no way demonstrates that the author is in error because the book is not teaching us science but is teaching us about God's judgment, will, salvation, and people. It is important that the flood be considered a universal one regardless of whether it covered the whole earth or not because the text is teaching us about the final judgment that is coming for all.

So to summarize the positive teaching of the flood narrative: the great Noah falls short of the coming seed who will crush the serpent's head. Changed hearts do not result from Noah's resurrection. All deserve the final judgment of guilty for sin. The new creation after the flood has not escaped the effects of the curse. Thus we need the poetry.

In the overall structure of Book Three (like Books One and Two) the most important part is the poetry. Curses and blessings for future generations are immensely important in the Torah and often are the poetic text. This poem is a curse/blessing: "He said, 'Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.' He also said, "Blessed be YHWH, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant'" (Gen 9:25-27). Thus the poem points us to the line of Shem as the line of the promise for one whose resurrection will crush the serpent's head, reverse the curse, and begin the new creation of the heavens and earth. Israel is of the line of Shem. Thus the poetry points us to Israel as the legitimate seed of the woman and heir to the promise and ultimately points us to Jesus Christ as that seed and heir.

And the brevity of the epilogue is appropriate. Noah died.

Labels: blessing, canaan, chiasm, curse, flood, Genesis, japheth, noah, recapitulation, shem

The second book in Genesis begins with the title "This is the book of the generations of Adam" (Gen 5:1). Thus we will find out about the descendants of Adam.

We should identify the genre of the narrative and part of the epilogue as a royal genealogy. Up until now I have not spoken much about the similarities of Genesis and literature from the surrounding ANE world. But this genre identification is important because the tendency of some is to try to date the earth based on mathematically analyzing texts like this. Waltke's commentary mentions the Sumerian king list, which could skip over many generations. Likewise, in Scripture the father/son relationship could also be a grandfather/grandson (or any number of generations) relationship. The purpose of this text is not scientific. It is a royal genealogy pointing us to the legitimacy of Israel (and ultimately Jesus Christ) as the heir of the promise to the woman. And thus the genealogy conforms to a pattern we will analyze later.

Genealogies are one of the most skimmed things in Scripture, but the genealogies in Genesis are some of the most fascinating texts. One of the really interesting things is the ages of the Sethites. Waltke cites M. Barnouin (who wrote in French) who has observed that the ages of the Sethites are equal to particular astronomical periods known to the Babylonians. Enoch's 365 years are the same number of days of the year. Lamech's 777 years (not to be confused with the Lamech in the last book) are the same as the synodic periods of Jupiter plus Saturn (this just means how long it takes for the planet to get back around to the same place in the sky). And Jared's 962 years are the same as the synodic periods of Venus plus Saturn. Moreover, Waltke says,

"If the sum of the years at the time of fathering and of the total life spans from Adam to Lamech are each divided by sixty--based on the Babylonian sexagesimal system--the sum of the remainders is 365, again perhaps representing the perfect life span. The cycles of a man's years may match the cycles of the heavenly spheres to show that their lives follow a meaningful pattern and end with a completed cycle."

So even though 365 is short compared to the lifespans of the others in the genealogy, Enoch was a very important man.

This is confirmed when we observe the pattern of the text. The pattern is: When X had lived Y years, he fathered...Z, The days of X after he fathered Z were ZZ years; and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days that X lived were ZZZ years, and he died. For Adam the pattern is more expansive than the rest. For example, for 'he fathered Z' it says, "he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth." This line is also expanded for Lamech, the text says, "he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying..." Any major variations of the pattern should stop us in our tracks as we read the genealogy. When we get to number three (Adam, Seth, Enosh) we find the basic pattern. Same with number four, Kenan; five, Mahalalel; and six, Jared. But as we should have guessed from the symbolic significance of seven (not to mention the crafting of the genealogy we saw in the last book) the pattern is broken for Enoch who lives the perfect lifespan. Instead of saying, 'Enoch lived after he fathered Methuselah 300 years' it says, "Enoch walked with God after he fathered..." And where we would expect the text to tell us, "and he died" it says, "Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. Enoch's son has the longest recorded lifespan (according to Scripture) 969 years. And Enoch himself could have lived longer than his son, but it is far better to be with God.

The pattern resumes only to be broken again for number ten. Ten means fullness. Therefore, at the fullness of time, God sent forth his son Noah (cf. Galatians 4:4). Thus the longer form of he fathered: "he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, 'Out of the ground that YHWH has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands'" (Gen 5:29). Here we see the same overall pattern for most of these books applies to this second book as well (heading, narrative, poetry, epilogue). And remember that we said the poetry is what is most important. Noah gives rest and joy to the people of God through raising a vineyard. Of course, this points forward to Jesus Christ, the son of God born at the fullness of time, who gives us rest and joy everlasting.

The epilogue continues the royal genealogy and adds the plus one generation has three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. The next book will be about them and unlike most of the books it will also be about Noah as it does not tell us "and he died" quite yet. The epilogue continues to prepare us for the next book and to set the stage. Traditionally the problem has been explained as the sons of Seth intermarrying with the daughters of Cain. But, following Meredith Kline, it is much more plausible (for grammatical, contextual and other reasons) to read "sons of God" as a title of kingship. Since "sons of God" also sometimes refers to angels, it is not a stretch to say that these kings are demon-possessed. The text then is talking about demon-possessed kings (the sons of Cain) taking harems ("they took as their wives any they chose," Gen 6:2) and breeding champions for their army (the Nephilim). The Nephilim are giants sometimes called Anakim. Anak was a person who is the ancestor of many giants and Nephil is the place where giants lived. See Numbers 13:33. Without a doubt, all giants are then called Nephilim. Sin has continued to escalate to a climax demanding judgment. Now we see more than just polygamy and murder but harems and marauding armies. "But Noah found favor in the eyes of YHWH" (Gen 6:8).

It is also worth noting that before the flood "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen 8:5) and after the flood "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). The circumcision of the heart has not yet taken place. God has started over but the problem of sin is not yet answered. This is the difference when God starts over with Jesus Christ and He pours out the Spirit.

Labels: enoch, Genesis, giants, harems, kline, noah, royal genealogy, ten

The key to seeing what is most important to the author is noticing the compositional strategy of the book. Most of the books in Genesis follow the following pattern: heading ("these are the generations of..."), narrative, poetry, epilogue. Actually Sailhamer, as mentioned in my earlier post, "The Way of Wisdom: The Canon and Cessation," notes that narrative, poetry, epilogue is the compositional strategy of the whole of Genesis and the whole of the Torah. In this strategy the key is the poetry. The difference between this book and most of those in Genesis is that the pattern of narrative, poetry, epilogue takes place thrice.

Genesis 2:4 is the heading for the second book: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that YHWH God made the earth and the heavens." It is worth noting, since this is a common structure in Genesis, that the mention of heavens, earth, earth, heavens is a chiastic pattern. Also the heading is artificially contrived to maintain continuity with the rest of the ten headings in the whole of Genesis. (Ten being a consistently significant number for fullness.) The title does not tell us who the book is about, instead the book is about this person's descendants. Thus, the first book is about the "descendants" of the heavens and the earth.

Within the narratival sections there is a general pattern. Each one begins with the problem, the response to the problem, and interaction between the person(s) involved and God. In the first panel (Gen 2:5-22) the main problem is that the earth has not yet brought forth vegetation (Gen 1:12) because it had not rained. It is also noted that there was no man, thus no irrigation. God solves these problems one at a time. First with rain, as translated by Lee Irons and Meredith Kline in "The Framework View" in The G3n3s1s Debate, "So a rain-cloud began to arise from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground." The word translated "rain-cloud" is only found in Scripture in Job and is found in another ANE language. In Job and the other language it means, "rain-cloud." (Not to mention that this translation makes sense as the solution to the problem introduced.) The other part is then solved by making man and designating him as the priest who guards or keeps the garden (Gen 2:15). God tells the man not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (a probationary test) and after making the land animals and birds then makes woman. The act of naming the animals shows Adam's servant-king power over the creation.

In the second panel (Gen 3:1-13) the problem is the serpent. Adam is the one to blame in the text because he had been given the role of the priest ("guard" the garden). Adam's response to the problem, however, was not to stand up to the serpent but to buy into his lies. In this panel the interaction between God and man is one of judgment. The picture is that of Judgment Day, or as it is often referred to in Scripture "the day" -- thus "And they heard the sound of YHWH God walking in the garden in the Spirit of The Day" (Gen 3:8). Adam and Eve hid because they knew it was The Day "for in The Day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Gen 2:17). The judgment day motif is complete with the sound of YHWH, which elsewhere in Scripture is described as incredibly loud and similar to that of a huge army. And the Spirit of God, usually translated with the silly "cool" idea of wind, should be identified with the Spirit of God from Gen 1:2 that hovered like a bird over the face of the waters. The response of Adam and Eve to the questioning in the court of judgment was to pass the blame. Adam blamed God and the woman. Eve blamed the serpent. It is not much of a step to Cain's "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9).

In the third panel (Gen 4:1-22) the problem is that "Cain brought to YHWH an offering of the fruit of the ground." Abel's offering was accepted because it was the firstborn of his flock, but Cain's offering was not the firstfruits of the ground. And Cain's sin mastered him as he killed Abel in premeditated murder in the field. Unlike in later Scripture where the death penalty is prescribed for murderers, God spares Cain and protects him. The genealogy offered in this chapter includes several interesting things worth noting. As we have been stressing structure, you should number the genealogy with Lamech as number seven. Cain is number 2, Enoch is number 3, Irad is number 4, etc. Number seven will without a doubt be significant. And Lamech is significant because he shows that sin has escalated out of control to a climax ready for God's judgment since he has two wives in contrast with the teaching of the first panel of marriage between one man and one woman and is a murderer (this we discover in the poetry). The genealogy is also structurally interesting because Lamech has three sons Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain. Adam also had three sons, Cain, Abel and Seth, and Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Most important in this book's structure is the poetry. In panel one the poetry is Gen 2:23: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." In panel two the poetry is Gen 3:14-19. The most quoted portion of this poem is the protoevangelium: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Gen 3:15). The poetry in the third panel is Lamech's curse where he boasts of murdering a young man for striking him and calls for revenge seventy-sevenfold. Unlike Cain, Lamech does not want his family to wait for God's vengeance but to take unbridled revenge into their own hands if anyone touches him. This is the perfect example of disproprotionate response -- Lamech kills a man for hitting him and if anyone kills him in reply he calls for seventy-sevenfold retaliation. Lamech's words are the anti-gospel. All of this poetry points to Jesus Christ. Jesus is the new Adam and his church is the Woman, bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. Jesus is the seed ("offspring") of the woman who bruises the head of the serpent. And Jesus is the one who goes through the curse of death on the cross for our sins and leads us to forgive seventy-sevenfold as he forgives his murderers.

The rest of the text in each panel (the remainer of each chapter) are the epilogues. The first epilogue shows a happy relationship between man and wife without shame. Shame would require clothing in the second panel (first they clothe themselves, but in the epilogue God sacrifices an animal to give them garments of skin). The epilogue also explains the continuing application of the poetry to the life of God's people ("a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" Gen 2:24). In the second panel, the continuing consequence is being driven from the mountain-garden of fruitfulness (Eden) so that man would not eat of the tree of life and seal himself to continue forever in his fallen estate. The way to the tree of life is through the sword of the circumcision of Christ on the cross. And in the third panel we see the birth of Seth. Seth's son Enosh would be the heir of Abel as this is the first example of a common practice in Israel (for example Boaz does this in the book of Ruth for Elimelech and his son Mahlon). This is why Enosh is mentioned here: Abel has his heir and the book can conclude on a note of hope with calling upon the name of YHWH.

We could examine these three chapters and note a great many more details. My reflections here owe much to my professors at Westminster Theological Seminary, the works of Meredith Kline, and the commentary of Bruce Waltke. As always I have added my own observations and analysis and any mistakes are my own.

Labels: abel, cain, Genesis, Genesis 1, kline, lamech's curse, protoevangelium, sailhamer, serpent

This text is a prologue for the whole of Genesis, the whole of the Torah, the whole of the Old Testament, and the whole of Scripture. It is not a science textbook.

As a prologue to Genesis 2-3 in the Garden of Eden, the creation of man is parallel to the creation of vegetation. The text also reveals what would happen if Adam had passed his probation -- he would continue to fill the earth and spread the garden and enter Sabbath rest. As a prologue to the story of Israel, it describes the creation of the sea and the land on Days 2 and 3a in a way similar to the Exodus Event. The waters separate and dry land appears. Moreover, the text teaches us that Israel was to be the servant of God and the king of creation (including the nations). In two words, Adam and Israel were to be a 'servant king' or, in one word, a 'son'. As a prologue to Scripture as a whole, it points us to the the goal of creation -- a fruitful earth filled with people glorifying God and entering His Sabbath rest.

The days of Genesis 1:1-2:3 are not literal twenty-four hour periods of time. First of all, Day Seven does not end in the text but continues throughout Scripture (Day Eight begins ahead of time with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ). Secondly, the sun, moon, and stars are not created until Day Four. And thirdly, these days while figurative with respect to earthly time are describing a heavenly reality. That is, the days and the speech of God all take place in the invisible heavens.

The days of Genesis 1:1-2:3 are not sequential periods of time on earth. Clearly Day Seven must be last and Day 6b must take place after Days 1-6a, but the days are not arranged sequentially. First of all, Day One and Day Four take place at the same time on earth. Day Four repeats language from Day One. On Day four it says that these lights are "to separate the day from the night" (Gen 1:14) and "to separate the light from the darkness" (Gen 1:18). This is precisely what was accomplished on Day One: "God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night" (Gen 1:5). The text through repetition means to let us know that these two Days take place at the same time on earth. Moreover, we should not expect that God would use His providence ("the earth brought forth vegetation" Gen 1:12 and "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land" Gen 2:5) in one area and sustain light without His normal means of providence until Day Four.

So Days One and Four are parallel. In fact, Day One describes kingdoms and Day Four describes the kings. "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern (or rule over) the day, and the lesser light to govern (or rule over) the night" (Gen 1:16). Days Two and Five are also parallel. On Day Two the kingdoms of sky and sea and then Day Five the kings of sea creatures and birds. Notice that the kings are created in the opposite order to the kingdoms (chiastic order). Also, they are described as kings by blessing them with a dominion (kingdom) mandate, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth" (Gen 1:22). Moreover, another thing the author does to make sure you read Days Two and Five as parallel in this literary structure is to leave out the phrase "and God saw that it was good" or something similar on Day Two and to leave out the phrase "and it was so" on Day Five. Thus "and it was so" or "and light was" for Day One (phrases that in Hebrew look much more similar than in English) is said a perfect seven times and "God saw that it was good" or "very good" is said a perfect seven times. The only place these are missing in the structure are on days two and five. Leaving out the comment about it being good is appropriate for Day Two because land has not appeared yet -- so in a very real sense it is not good yet.

Days Three and Six are also parallel. The main way this is communicated is through having each have two creative acts. The phrase "And God said, Let..." takes place eight times in the first six days. And to make this work Days Three and Six are both given two. The diagram compared to the text will help you visualize this better. On Day 3a there is the creation of the kingdom called land. On Day 6a there is the creation of land animals. And on Day 3b there is the creation of the kingdom called vegetation, and on Day 6b there is the creation of people as kings. The dominion mandate for man is over the whole of creation in general but more specifically over the garden (preparing us for Genesis 2-3).

Thus at the end of Day Three the formless or more literally "wilderness/desert" earth is on its way to becoming fruitful and at the end of Day Six the void or better empty or "deserted" earth is on its way to becoming full.

Whenever we interpret Scripture we must try to discern what it is that the author is doing. In this text, once you see the structure, it is clear that the Days are not literal nor sequential from an earthly perspective. God is trying to teach us much more important things than a science textbook. And Genesis 1:1-2:3 is fully the word of God and without error.

And this is 'literally' a prologue to the book of Genesis. The rest of Genesis, beginning with Gen 2:4, consists in ten books each beginning with a phrase like "These are the generations of..." and Genesis 1:1-2:3 is the kingdom prologue.

I am heavily indebted to the works and teachings of Meredith Kline (even borrowing his book titled Kingdom Prologue for the title of the post), Lee Irons, and Lane Tipton for this post.

Labels: framework, Genesis, Genesis 1, kingdom, kings, kline, prologue, protology

Elders (including the teaching elder often called the pastor) and deacons are the Spiritual leaders of the church. The elders lead the church in word ministries and the deacons lead the church in deed ministries. Even among the elders there is a division of labor between the teaching elder(s) and the ruling elders, but both groups of elders are Spiritual leaders who lead in word ministries.

Jesus was the perfect elder and deacon: He was "a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people" (Luke 24:19). His words interpreted his works. Both point to who He was and what He was doing. Our words and works also should point people to Jesus.

As a division of labor - elders focus on leading the church in word ministries and deacons focus on leading the church in deed ministries. But all members do both - all members are ministers in word and deed. And as Paul said, "Whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him" (Col 3:17). We are ministers out of thanksgiving for our salvation in Christ.

Word ministries respond to the broken relationship that people have with God and with themselves. Thus evangelism (narrowly defined) and counseling are word ministries that elders lead and that the whole church does.

Deed ministries respond to the broken relationship that people have with each other and the ground. Deed ministries include any ministry that addresses physical and social needs - like for fellowship, friendship, food, water, shelter, transportation, etc. Such deed ministries deacons lead and the whole church does.

Both word and deed ministries must focus first on the congregation and then on the community. If we are not taking care of the Spiritual, psychological, social, and physical needs of our congregation, then we will be much less effective at evangelism. Let me broadly define evangelism as ministering to the Spiritual, psychological, social, and physical needs (needs for Christ) of others (our community and the world) or for a shorter definition ministering the good news of Jesus Christ in word and deed to the world. Evangelism is something that elders and deacons lead and that the whole church does.

While there is a difference in emphasis between elders and deacons, both will engage in word evangelism and both will engage in deed evangelism. The words interpret the works. Words without works are just talk, as John said, "Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth" (1 John 3:18). And works without words are open to misinterpretation. God creates and interprets all of the good works you will do. In philosophical terms, for Christianity, there are no brute works just as there are no brute facts. The primary misinterpretation is that you are doing good works in order to earn your salvation. We need to offer people God's interpretation. As Paul said,

By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast, for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph 2:8-10).

My thoughts have been influenced by many people and books including:

Harvie Conn, Evangelism: Doing Justice and Preaching Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1982).

Timothy Keller, "Diaconal Training" [audio cd] (WTSBooks, 1997); and Ministries of Mercy: The Call of the Jericho Road, 2d. ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1997).

Labels: brute works, deacons, elders, evangelism, reformed theology, spiritual leadership, thanksgiving

Too many conservative Christians view the Bible the way Muslims view the Qur'an -- they act as if the Bible fell out of heaven in a heavenly language. But our God is a God who works in history. And in the incarnation, the Son of God came down from heaven and took on flesh, lived and spoke, died, and was resurrected in history.

You will find that there is similar literature to what is in Scripture in the Ancient Near East (ANE). Moreover, Scripture is not written in a heavenly language. Some assumed that the New Testament's Greek was unique until they discovered everyday documents proving that it was the common Greek of the common people at the time. The cosmology of Scripture is not unique, the authors of Scripture use the normal ANE framework in their descriptions. Scripture is fully the words of its human authors. We should expect that on this level Scripture would "fit in" in the world when it was written. In other words, we should expect that on this level Scripture would not be strange in the ANE. What makes Scripture unique is that it is fully the word of the true and living God.

Reformed theologians have been apt defenders of the doctrine of inerrancy (Scripture is without error) and infallibility (Scripture is unable to err). They have positively set forth how Scripture is fully the word of God written down. And they began to positively set forth how Scripture is fully the words of its human authors. But this point was not developed and stressed. We can only speculate on the question of "What if?" If they had developed the full humanity of Scripture, would Barthianism have become so popular? And perhaps if they had done so then the multitudes that become convinced intellectually (even if the Spirit is testifying to Scripture as the word of God in their hearts) that Scripture has errors would not have been so convinced.

One of the problems is that most conservatives and liberals share the same set of modern presuppositions. That is, they both begin from the same assumptions about what would make Scripture err and anyone who is intellectually honest would have to admit that on this foundation the liberals would be right. In other words, both come to the text expecting that Scripture has to speak the way a modern would or it is in error. They impose upon the text their own criteria for truth. They set themselves up as gods judging the word of the true God.

Take for example something as simple as the classification of plants and animals. The modern method of classification relies on dissection to know what is going on in the inside of the plant or animal. The ANE method of classification relied on looking at the outside of the plant or animal. In both systems there are plants and animals that do not quite fit. Which animals chew the cud again? Is the tomato really a fruit? Both systems can be valid ways of classifying plants and animals. Just because moderns use the one and ancients used the other does not mean that the ancient system is in error when it conflicts with the modern system. Scripture is not a science textbook. It does say things that are binding on science, but to expect it to be a science textbook is imposing upon the text external criteria for determining if it is inerrant.

Instead, what we need to do is to see what Scripture says about itself and what Scripture is actually saying and doing. It is important to know what genre of literature one is reading, for example, before one hastily jumps to the conclusion that Scripture is in error.

Speaking of jumping to conclusions, the simple answer is not often the right answer. Too often conservative Christians look for the simple answer. Take, for example, Chronicles. Some would want to harmonize what it says with what historical books in the Prophets say. But then they would miss what Scripture is doing. Chronicles is not making mistakes in telling about the history of Israel. Every word was intentional. So we need to begin asking, "Why?" Why is the author of Chronicles doing what he is doing?

If you want to understand why Scripture looks like it does, begin with the incarnational analogy. It is an analogy so do not force it to fit every detail. Let us state it: Scripture is fully the words of its human authors and fully the word of God just as Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine. We might also note that as Jesus was without sin, all of the teaching of Scripture is without error and actually unable to err. You will run into problems any time you deny the humanity of Scripture or the divinity of Scripture. Both are true. Our God is a God who works in history.

It is also worth noting that it is only by the Holy Spirit that one can come to see the full divinity of Scripture.

This post sets forward nothing new than what I learned at Westminster Theological Seminary, though any mistakes are my own. A particularly helpful book is Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament by Peter Enns. You may also find his further reflections online helpful. See http://peterennsonline.com/ii/

Labels: barthianism, hebrew scriptures, incarnation, incarnational analogy, inerrancy, infallibility, islam

This post is mostly just an effort to show off a newly learned word - abecedarian. What it means is the elementary things - the ABC's , or if you will, the ABCD's. You can see this just looking at the word: A,Be,Ce,Dar-ian.

So what are the elementary things of the faith? If we are doing the elementary things of the faith then we will be able to begin to do some of the more mature things of the faith. Someone once said that the reading, writing and arithmetic of the Christian faith is Scripture reading (~reading), prayer (~writing), and fellowship (~arithmetic). If we are not doing these basics how can we ever grow in maturity in faith?

The church got off to a great start in this regard. The account of Pentecost tells us "So those who received his [Peter's] word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls and they devoted themselves to the apostle's teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:41-42, ESV modified). These three thousand souls were not just added to a church roll, they devoted themselves to the apostle's teaching (reading) and fellowship (arithmetic), to the breaking of bread and the prayers (writing). So the church from the beginning had a sound foundation of reading, writing and arithmetic - Scripture study, prayer and fellowship. Therefore, one of the oaths taken at baptism is a promise to devote yourself to the reading, writing, and arithmetic of the church.

But this was not universally the case among the New Testament churches. Paul tells the Corinthians, "But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?" (1 Cor 3:1-3, ESV). The problem here was the arithmetic - fellowship. The problem was not church growth numerically. The problem was that there were fractures in its existing fellowship because they were not getting along with one another. This was also causing problems in the breaking of bread (1 Cor 11).

In all of this it is important to note that the reading, writing, and arithmetic is public. To be sure, Bibles were not available as easily as they are today so to hear the Scriptures you had to hear them in worship. But hearing Scripture and praying publicly was not just for convenience - there are very deep theological reasons for these three cohering together. But today most people have forgotten that the abecedarian things of the faith are done together during Worship on the Lord's Day. Many are content to read and study Scripture on their own, often people who have never stepped foot in a church will protest that they pray often (even daily or more), and they do not see the need at all for fellowship. This is a sad state of affairs. Many in such a situation have not been born again - they are not infants in the faith. This is worse than the Corinthians, who at least gathered together even if they were not ready for solid food due to their bickering.

It is also worth noting that reading, writing, and arithmetic on the Lord's Day should be accompanied by reading, writing and arithmetic on the next six days of the week. In fact, Acts went on to say, "And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people" (2:46-47a, ESV).

We can also discuss under the category of "reading" an elementary doctrine of Christ. For example, the author of Hebrews tells us, "Let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instructions about washings [perhaps baptisms], the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits" (6:1-3, ESV). Perhaps this is why Christians have such a hard time with the book of Hebrews as it gets beyond the basics. Some would be content to have a simple evangelistic message every Lord's Day and never go on to maturity in our doctrine of Christ. Thus beyond Hebrews 11, using the chapter to discuss the foundation of repentance and faith, the rest of Hebrews largely goes untouched in preaching. Actually the larger problem is one of biblical literacy. One can begin to understand the complex doctrine of Christ presented in Hebrews only if one has a firm foundation of biblical literacy when it comes to the Old Testament. Thus in most churches preachers know they cannot move beyond the elementary doctrine of Christ until they teach their congregations the basics of how to read the Old Testament in light of Christ.

Let us build upon the elementary practices and doctrine of the Christian faith. This is one of the goals of this blog. I want to get beyond the basics. We can agree with all true churches about repentance from dead works and faith in Christ, the resurrection of the dead, eternal judgment, and a great many other doctrines. The Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are good for a summary of what all Christians believe with regard to basic doctrine. The most basic of which is that the Triune God is the true and living God. But if we are going to go on to maturity in our doctrine then we must not only defend the abecedarian things, but also wrestle with the claims of Romanists, Anabaptists, Pentecostals, and dispensationalists, and others. If Presbyterians fail to offer reasons for being Reformed rather than adhering to these or other teachings, then why not join those churches? While they are my brothers and sisters in Christ, I profoundly disagree with those I may agree with on the abecedarian things.

But to bring this discussion around - coming to conclusions subject to further reformation according to Scripture on these mature issues requires reading, writing, and arithmetic on the Lord's Day. Someone once said that the ABC's of Christianity are Admit you're a sinner, Believe in Christ, and Confess it to all with thanksgiving to God. This is only a beginning. Let's build on it.

Labels: abecedarian, arithmetic, faith, pentecost, reading, writing

1 Peter 1:10 "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look." (ESV)

Peter, like Paul, thinks in redemptive-historical categories.

The third reason Peter gives for blessing God is that we have a time-place of privilege and advantage above the prophets and angels. This place of privilege is redemptive-historical - that is, we are at an advantage because we live after Christ's death/resurrection/Pentecost event-complex. The apostles, including Peter, are the ones Peter mentions when he says "those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven" (1:12b). Peter's audience is at an advantage because the apostles preached the good news to them. Old Testament heralds : Old Testament Audience :: Apostles : Peter's Audience and us. Except the Apostles are at an advantage compared to the Old Testament heralds (prophets and angels) and the apostle's audience is at an advantage compared to not only the Old Testament audience but also the Old Testament heralds (prophets and angels).

This is perhaps clearest with regards to the prophets. The Old Testament, to summarize, is about the sufferings and the subsequent glories of Christ. The prophets were searching and inquiring carefully trying to discover what the Spirit of Christ within them was revealing. What person or time was the Spirit of Christ indicating? The answer was that the prophets were serving the people who would live in this time - the time after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and giving of the Spirit on Pentecost. People may think nostalgically as if it would be great to live in the time of the prophets but that can only mean that they do not appreciate just how privileged they are to live in this time. All of the Old Testament prophets would have preferred to live and proclaim the gospel today. They were looking forward to the accomplishment of redemption in history whereas the apostles were able to announce that it is finished. So those who hear the message of the apostles are in a better position compared to the prophets.

The reason Peter's audience is in a better position compared to the angels is that the angels gave the law (according to tradition) whereas the apostles gave the gospel. Those given the gospel are in a far better place in the history of salvation than those who were given the law (Israel). And those given the gospel are in a far better place than those who gave the law (the angels).

That the angels gave the law is a tradition also assumed by Stephen's speech in Acts 7:53 "you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it" and Paul in Galatians 3:19 "Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary."

So then the prophets and angels were associated with the Old Testament dispensation and were thus looking forward to hear the message that the apostles were able to deliver. Therefore, Peter's audience is at a time-place of privilege compared to the Old Testament audience and the Old Testament heralds (the prophets and angels). The difference between the prophets and angels being that the angels would still be able to look into these things and hear the announcement of the apostles.

This difference might lead someone to object because the implication is that the prophets inquired (in the past) but the angels long to look (in the present). So perhaps I am reading into the text a redemptive-historical contrast with regards to the angels to the apostles when the passage only means to highlight the redemptive-historical contrast of the prophets to the apostles. Nevertheless, reading into the text a redemptive-historical contrast with regards to the angels and apostles is the natural next step to take (a reader at the time would associate the mention of angels with the giving of the law). The reason the angels are longing to look in the present is that they were the ones who gave Israel the law. Regardless, the apostles are in a better position than the angels because the apostles proclaimed the gospel and the angels listen. The redemptive-historical contrast helps us to explain why Peter's audience is in a better position than the angels even though they get to hear it too. Some may even wish to object and somehow identify the prophets of the passage as New Testament prophets, but this objection has been adequately addressed by other commentators.

Thinking redemptive-historically is the greatest advancement in biblical interpretation in Reformed circles in the Twentieth Century. Our Bible is not flat - it was not dropped out of heaven all at once. God has engaged us in history. Thanks be to God for Biblical Theology opening our eyes to such great truths.

Labels: angels, prophecy, prophets, redemptive-historical interpretation

My wife always asks me why I watch these biblical history shows on the History Channel. It is refreshing to know that you know a lot more than the so-called experts on an issue and fun to be able to spot the presuppositions made by the History Channel that are demonstrably false. When there is a scholarly consensus on an issue, they ignore the consensus and trot out an expert that espouses views that no reputable scholar would ever defend. No doubt this is because strange theories make for better television, as far as they are concerned, and for more controversy which might increase ratings. Even when they convince reputable scholars to participate, they usually have them articulate the truth and then go about making it look wrong or at least trying to introduce "reasonable doubt."

Having seen a number of these shows, here are some rants about one Biblical Disasters that are representative of the approach of the History Channel:

1. There are a few stated objectives: The first is to find evidence that supports the biblical account. This sounds innocuous enough at first. Another is to "help us cope with catastrophe now." Very interesting. So the History Channel does not simply want to chronicle the past and tell us the brute facts (as if there were such a thing) proving or disproving the Scriptural account, but they actually want to provide answers for dealing with disaster today (the question of relevance). They have moved very quickly into philosophy and quasi-religion. In other words, they are setting forward a world-view that is not the biblical world-view and attempting to make sense of the past and make prescription for the present. They assume this worldview...it is there presupposition with god as chance. Picture a world-view as a circle and the point at the top is the god "chance." At this point we are just two minutes into the program...so let's see if my interpretation of their project holds up (I had earlier watched several minutes, so I do know what is coming).

2. To answer the first objective they examine archeology, the texts of ancient civilizations and Scripture itself. They are asking whether the biblical disaster accounts can be shown to be actual historical events. This skeptical approach is not working with brute facts however. Instead, all facts are created and correctly interpreted by God. So what the history channel will do is to interpret archaeological finds, interpret the texts of ancient civilizations and interpret the Scriptures. And these interpretations are not bound to think God's thoughts after Him. These interpretations are not to describe what God was doing in accord with how He interpreted to His people what He was doing. Instead, they will interpret these three sources from their own worldview. They say that the accounts in the Bible are inseparable from the agenda of Scripture (Christians believe Scripture to be fully the Word of God, so it is God's agenda). Here is the problem - all historical writing does the same. Their project is capable of the same critique that they make of Scripture but they pretend to be objective and have no justification for doing so. To be objective it must be the correct interpretation (which only God can give) so they are setting themselves up as gods and saying that god is chance. They say that the authors of Scripture are consumed with God's role in disasters...the history channel is likewise consumed with the role of chance in disasters. They say that the focus on God as the one who made disasters "may have distracted them from another possibility" - most disasters are the result of people (where they choose to live, for example). Moreover, the problem the History Channel has with the Christian faith is that it is not their faith - they believe and trust in chance (as if chance were trustworthy).

4. Ancient peoples did not have the assistance available during the aftermath of a disaster that we have today. Therefore, the History Channel says, "Only the lucky or the self-reliant survive, left to search for meaning." Hmmm...their god is chance and their philosophy is Darwinian (survival of the fittest). This interpretation of survival is very revealing of the History Channel's theological and philosophical presuppositions. Moreover, the History Channel is on a quest for meaning - they are trying to articulate why things happen and what our purpose is - apart from God's revelation.

5. Looking at the plagues of Exodus: They fail to see the miraculous in the timing of the plagues and in the discrimination of the plagues between Egyptians and the Hebrews. They acknowledge that the tenth plague could only be explained supernaturally (well, actually they put it less strongly than this: "seems to arise from the realm of the supernatural"). Then they go about explaining the first six plagues as a bacteria in the water - anthrax on algae. This makes the water look red (red algae), the anthrax kills the fish, no predator for the frogs (the fish are dead) so they multiply and exhaust the food supply and die in vast numbers, this leads to gnats and flies appearing because of the dead animals, the cattle perish because they have been bitten by anthrax infected insects that cause boils on the skin. Such explanations are nothing new...others have tried to do similar things before. I will not add to the volumes of commentary on this line of reasoning.

6. Looking at the Exodus event the History Channel accurately conveys that though traditionally translated the Red Sea, it is more accurate to translate the Hebrew as "Sea of Reeds." Again they interpret this event as requiring nothing supernatural. The objective is to make the god of chance a plausible alternative to the God of Scripture. It takes a great deal of faith in the god of chance to believe that these conditions they describe would be timed so perfectly for the Hebrew people to escape. As they say, "A moderate wind blowing constantly for ten hours could have caused the sea to recede about a mile and the water level to drop ten feet, this would temporarily create dry land in the sea bed until the winds died down and the water suddenly came flooding back."

7. Sodom and Gomorrah: they ask two questions-"Did it actually occur?" and "If so, what fiery force of nature is responsible?" Again, the worldview of the History Channel does not permit the God of the Scriptures to operate supernaturally. They find two places that might be these towns - both destroyed by fire and dated to the right time frame. The first theory is that an earthquake might have ignited the tar present that would have made a storm of fire. Then they tell us an even more controversial theory - a comet exploded. A third proposal is that perhaps it was a volcano. And a fourth is that it was lightening. The theories are less important than the goal - to make the god of chance plausible. A Christian might do such reflection on Scripture, but they do so from a different worldview where the supernatural is possible, where God is in control, and where the interpretation of the events in Scripture is the right interpretation of what took place. When someone who worships chance does such reflection on Scripture they assume that only the natural is possible, everything happens by chance, and the interpretation of Scripture might not be right (perhaps it was not God punishing Sodom and Gomorrah for its sin (that God does not exist) but simply a natural event).

8. The Flood: Here they note that peoples all over the world have "eerily similar" stories about a universal flood. This account shows the limitations of archeology - trying to interpret very little that survives and wondering if local floods might be the universal flood mentioned in these stories. They do not know enough to make any conclusions whatsoever.

9. They try to explain the plague on the Philistines for taking the ark as the bubonic plague.

10. And etc.

Archaeology and history try to describe what has happened. Science tries to describe what happens. None of these fields of study can avoid interpretation - by definition they are interpreting what God has done. You may have read some of the History Channel's theories and it might have introduced "reasonable doubt" in your mind. But this doubt they are trying to raise is not reasonable. The interpretation of the events is crucial, and here I am not talking about whether it was lightening or tar ignited by an earthquake or something else because these theories cannot prove what they assert, but whether it was a foreshadowing of the death and resurrection of Christ (for pre-Christ disasters) and the final judgment for everyone else or it is just something that happened by chance and there will be no final judgment and therefore all that matters is here and now. The lesson that the History Channel would have us to learn from disasters of biblical proportions is that humans are responsible for their own fate - you should not live in certain places and should heed the warnings of earthquakes. Also they say that you should learn to lean on one another from disasters. Certainly Christians should keep these things in mind, but this pales in comparison with the weightier questions.

The lesson that Scripture would have us to learn from disasters of biblical proportions is that the end is coming and we need to be ready at any time. For example, Jesus says, "And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are but the beginning of the birth pains. 9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come" (Matt 24:6-14, ESV). The destruction of Jerusalem was coming in AD 70 and points forward to the final judgment. Likewise, we should be reminded of the end when any catastrophe comes. The one who endures to the end will be saved. The key is faith in Jesus Christ. Faith in chance does not save.

These are just a few thoughts...suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Labels: archaeology, biblical history, exodus, philosophy of history

Apparently there has been a debate lately on the question of whether the Reformation is over. I heard Carl Trueman speak eloquently about how it most certainly is not. Let me add the following observations to the debate (though I suspect I am saying nothing especially new and this should complement my earlier post about what it means to be "Reformed"):

1. The Reformation was a recovery of the centrality of Christ. This recovery can never be complete in this life because we constantly have to remind ourselves that Jesus Christ is our Savior and not we ourselves. I recently heard someone make the preposterous claim to be "really Reformed" because they held that God could save those whom He chose to save no matter what religion they professed. This is in desperate need of reformation according to Scripture - Christ alone is the way, the truth, and the life and not just because one verse says so but because the entire Bible says so. This missing emphasis on Christ alone is also what sets us apart from most monotheists - mosques and synagogues do not proclaim the divinity of Christ or that He is the way. Grace cannot be separated from Christ.

2. The Reformation was a recovery of the gospel of grace. This recovery can never be complete in this life because we constantly have to remind ourselves that we cannot earn our salvation but that it is a free gift from God. All too often I hear people say that Christianity is all about rules, the people who say this are often conservative Christians themselves and they see this as a good thing. The problem is that we must keep things in their proper place - grace and then thanksgiving. Jesus Christ has done everything necessary for our salvation and if that salvation has been applied to us by the Holy Spirit we should respond with thanksgiving in everything we do. The problem is especially acute when it comes to how the church treats children outside of the covenant community. We assume they should be able to be good, which they can formally, and we demand that kind of obedience instead of sharing the gospel and leading them to obedience from the heart. It is one thing to know this intellectually and another thing altogether to actually do. And part of the problem is the necessity for some formal obedience so that they can even hear the gospel in the first place.

3. The Reformation was a recovery of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This again can never be complete in this life because we too often find ourselves telling others that they must do what we did in order to be saved rather than presenting the gospel of justification by faith alone. Some want to add to faith some of these things: cultural trappings (regulations on clothing, hair, make-up, no automobiles, no electronics, etc. - all depending on what culture they are trying to preserve), speaking in tongues, good works, responding to an altar call, etc. In other words, you have to do something in addition to faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone for salvation - you cannot be a Christian until you do these things. One of our youth recently said she has not been saved. I asked if she trusted in Christ for her salvation, she said yes. Why the discrepancy? Because too many people in our area believe you must have some kind of religious experience during a hymn that drives you forward for the "altar call." She may well already be a Christian but has been told something else is necessary for her to be a Christian. This is typical.

4. The Reformation was a recovery of the importance of Scripture. This again can never be complete in this life because if it were up to us Scripture would have disappeared long ago. We often believe the latest fads in psychology or other fields to be more important than Scripture in helping others (and I am talking here about even those who hold to the sufficiency of Scripture). We are more likely to read books about Scripture than to read the actual text of Scripture (and skim or skip the quotes included in them). And many conservatives hold to notions about Scripture that come more from their personal biases and from modernism than from Scripture itself. A helpful book in this regard is Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns. If conservatives were to embrace the incarnational analogy this would go a long ways in helping moderates on Scripture. When I tell theological liberals that I believe that Scripture is fully the Word of God and fully the words of its human authors (the incarnational analogy), they have to stop and think because they have always thought it must be one or the other. Many of the moderates are also confused - they believe the Bible is the Word of God (the Spirit even is testifying in them that this is the case) they just see things they would not expect and that shakes their confidence on Scripture being the only rule of life and faith. The problem is that too often conservatives, moderates, and liberals all have the same presuppositions as they approach Scripture - such as, that it be precise like a science textbook, that it be fair and balanced like a history textbook (in theory, but never in reality) rather than ideological, etc. The point is they expect that an ancient book be a modern book rather than going to Scripture alone to discover what it is doing or even hide behind the motto 'Scripture alone' to avoid seeing it in the context of the ancient world and its human authors.

The point is that the solas are always in need of recovery and no church can go without continual Reformation according to Scripture alone and its message of Christ Alone, Grace Alone, and Faith Alone.

Labels: christ, faith, grace, justification, reformation, reformed theology, scripture

What follows are some reflections on the implications of the doctrine of the Trinity - that God is one and God is three (thus I prefer Triunity of God). I may add to this list from time to time, please comment with your suggestions and reflections.

The Doctrine: The Triunity of God. The Application:

1. Everything. Our ultimate presupposition in life, as Christians, is that the God of the Scriptures is God. We do not serve a generic god, we worship a specific God who has revealed His name in Scripture. The Gospel of Matthew tells us that the name (singular) of God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the three-fold name). Our God is a personal God, one in essence and three in persons. This is our starting point for everything.

2. How do we relate to other religions? Some Mosques, over the doorway, say Allah is not three. This means that they do not worship the God of Christianity. Modern Jewish synagogues do not accept the Triunity of God because they reject Jesus of Nazareth's claim to divinity. This means they do not worship the God of Christianity. Unitarians, who sometimes consider themselves Christians and sometimes do not, do not believe that God is three persons. This means they do not worship the God of Christianity. And Christians are not tri-theists - they do not worship three gods, as some heretical groups and Muslims claim. Christians worship one God - the Triune God, the God who is one and three. This surely has implications for interfaith dialogue.

3. The three persons of the eternal Triune God display perfect unity and communion/fellowship. Therefore, Christians are united and in communion with one another through Jesus Christ. As Jesus prayed to God the Father, "that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:11).

4. The eternal Triune God displays perfect unity and diversity in roles. It is as God is one (unity) and three (diversity in persons and roles) that we are to be united as the body of Christ and each different Christian (diversity in persons) has different gifts, service, and activities in the kingdom of God. So the doctrine of the Triunity of God should lead us to realize that we will do different things and have different gifts but be one people. For this application you might begin with 1 Corinthians 12:3-6 (and context) - Spirit, Lord, God is Trinitarian reflection.

5. Knowledge of the infinite, incomprehensible God is only possible because He has revealed Himself. Nature reveals God in truth, but not in completeness. We would never come to the doctrine of the Trinity from nature not only because of our total depravity but because there is simply no way we could know that God is one and God is three from nature - special revelation was necessary to tell us this. The Old Testament reveals God in truth, but not in completeness. There are hints of the divinity of Christ and the Spirit in the Old Testament, but we could not build this doctrine from the Old Testament without the New Testament. Much more is clear, including the full name of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the New Testament. Still God is incomprehensible. He is only knowable because He has revealed Himself to us through faith. The basic application being that we can try to make the incomprehensible (like that for God 1=3) make sense to people (an impossible task - we cannot make the incomprehensible comprehensible), but only those to whom God grants faith will receive this revelation (God makes the incomprehensible knowable). It is worth noting that our knowledge is creaturely knowledge (Christians cannot know exhaustively but can know truly). Remember these things when asked to make a defense of your faith.

Also, from Herman Bavinck, three points on the significance of the doctrine:

A. God is in perfect fullness of life apart from the creation. God is distinct in essence from the creature and creation in general. These two points rule out deism and pantheism respectively. The basic point is to say that the doctrine makes clear to us how God, apart from the universe He created, can be perfect in love, knowledge, and the rest of His attributes. "Apart from the Trinity," Bavinck says, "these attributes are mere names, sounds without connotation, empty concepts" (quoting from the Hendricksen translation The Doctrine of God, 330-331). For example, to explain it in my own way, to say that God is love would be an empty statement before the creation of the universe for God, except that love is an attribute of God shared within the Trinity. Love existed between the persons of the Trinity from eternity because God is love. Therefore, God does not need us to be love.

B. Creation presupposes the Triune God. This is the only way to distinguish from deism and pantheism. God relates to His creation but is separate from creation.

C. Bavinck's third point is that the doctrine of the Trinity is important for practical religion. He says, "Whenever any one rejects God's tri-unity, he destroys the very foundation of Christian belief, and casts aside all of special revelation. The doctrine of the trinity is the sum and substance of Christian faith, the root of all dogmas, the essence of the new covenant" (333). The work of redemption is one divine act with a three-fold distinction: the love of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the communion of the Spirit.

These are just a few reflections on the implications and applications we can derive from the doctrine of God's Triunity. Please send me corrections, improvements, additions, comments, etc. I have posted elsewhere the implications of the doctrine of the trinity according to John Flavel.

Labels: bavinck, islam, judaism, reformed theology, trinity, unitarianism

This is a Leap Year....thus the theme of my sermons in 2008 thus far has been that this should be a Leap for Joy for salvation year (like every year since the resurrection of Christ). Reformed Christians should not be the "frozen chosen," as sometimes is said, but the "blissful blessed" (a phrase I coined for one of the sermons in the series). This should be a given since it is so apparent in Scripture. Why then, do the Reformed have a reputation for sitting or standing still? To be sure, we do not want to have emotionalism run amok but we should be excited about salvation in Christ. And we do need to be silent and still sometimes to listen to God, but having heard from Him we cannot help but respond with praise.

If you are interested in listening to some of the sermons in this series, you can find them at http://revmarple.com/joy.

Labels: christian, joy, leap year, reformed theology, salvation, sermon

While we certainly should keep Christ in Christmas, we need to keep Him in Thanksgiving too.

In Reformed theology giving thanks has always been the major reason for keeping the law of God. The Heidelberg Catechism even puts the exposition of the Ten Commandments under living in thanksgiving for salvation.

So this thanksgiving, let us reflect on whether we are constantly and diligently praying to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit so that we will be able to keep the law more and more, even though we will make only a small beginning in obedience during this life.

Reflect on your inability to keep the law of God and give thanks to God for the righteousness of Christ imputed to you.

Or if you are not a Christian, ask yourself if you could ever thank God with your imperfect and small tokens of goodness or good works. He does not need your thanks. Go before God with empty hands to receive the gift of faith if He should choose to bestow it upon you. And then start giving thanks to God by cleaning up your life.

Soli Deo Gloria...to God alone be the glory. Amen.

Labels: reformed theology thanksgiving

Click here to listen to this teaching.

There were at least four kinds of officers in the New Testament church: apostles, evangelists, overseers/elders, and deacons. The apostle and evangelist offices were temporary in order to establish the foundation for the church. The offices that continue to today are overseers/elders and deacons. An apostle could perform the roles of evangelist, elder, and deacon. An evangelist could perform the roles of elder and deacon. And an elder could perform the role of a deacon. Elders and deacons operated within a particular church, whereas the apostles and evangelists were officers for the whole church.


How are they chosen?

Elders:

Acts 14:23 - "they appointed elders in every church" or

"And when they had chosen for them, by suffrage [election], elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed" (Thomas Witherow, The Apostolic Church - Which is It? -- this post is a summary of the best in his argument).

The verb translated appointed in this verse is often noted to mean to vote by stretching out the hand - in other words, the elders were elected by the people. The only other place this word occurs is 2 Corinthians 8:19:

"And not only that, but he [Titus] has been appointed by the churches to travel with us as we carry out this act of grace...."

Here the meaning is clearly that Titus was chosen by the churches to travel with Paul as an evangelist. In any case, the evidence is slim...it is unclear if Paul and Barnabas chose the elders for the churches or if they oversaw the election of elders. Nevertheless, after the apostles are gone it should not be surprising that the people would elect elders. Moreover, the point was to discover the will of God - who had God chosen to lead this particular church. Witherow notes that even election was used for choosing a new apostle to replace Judas Iscariot (there together with straws to decide between the two chosen by election).

Deacons:

Acts 6:2-3 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty." (ESV)

Here it is clear that deacons were chosen by election from among the members.

How many are in each church?

Acts 14:23 - "they appointed [see above] elders in every church"

Note that there are elders - there is more than one elder in each church.

How are elders and deacons set apart (ordained) to the office?

Ordination is an act of the church: The laying on of hands by elders. This is not so controversial, it is very clear from the texts.

Where do we see the first example of a gathering of elders above the local session of elders?

Acts 15: Paul and Barnabas tried to convince the local church that you did not need to be circumcised in order to be saved. The local church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some of the others

"to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question."

"The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter."

The apostles and elders had the church in Jerusalem

"to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas."

And they sent them with a letter. The church asking for a ruling on the matter received the letter with joy.

Acts 16:4 As they [Paul and Timothy] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. (ESV)

Thus a local session of elders can appeal to an assembly of elders.

The Test
In what system of government are the officers elected by the members of the congregation, have a plurality of elders in each local church, ordain officers by a plurality of elders, can appeal to an assembly of elders who exercise government at a level above the session of elders in the local church, and the only head of the church is Jesus Christ?

The three options:
Monarchical (Hierarchical) Rule by a Sacred Leader (pastor, pope, etc.)
Congregational Rule by Congregation (pure democracy)
Presbyterian Rule by Elders (session of elders)

It is worth noting that some congregations are presbyterian at the level of the congregation but not organized into presbyteries. And other denominations may be presbyterian without the word presbyterian in their title.

Labels: congregational, deacons, elders, episcopal, pastor, pope, presbyter, presbyterian

Are you perplexed by Pentecost? By far, the least understood part of the Death, Resurrection, & Pentecost event-complex is Pentecost. These three things are inseparable and unrepeatable works of Christ. And together they mark the beginning of a new era for God's people. But most of us are much more familiar with the significance of His death and resurrection than with Pentecost.

If you are perplexed by Pentecost, notice that we are not the first people to ask: "What does this mean?" Luke tells us that those who were there were "bewildered" (Acts 2:6), they were "amazed and astonished" (Acts 2:7), they were "amazed and perplexed" (Acts 2:12). They said to each other, "What does this mean?" (Acts 2:12).

And the first interpretation of Pentecost put on someone's lips in this story is, "They are filled with new wine." In other words, 'they must be drunk.' Yes, our narrator, Luke, had told us earlier, "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit." But those looking on did not know this. They would have to listen to Peter, himself filled with the Holy Spirit, as he refuted this competing interpretation that they were drunk by noting that it was only 9 a.m. ("the third hour of the day," Acts 2:15), it was too early for them to all be drunk.

Then when Peter begins to explain the significance of this perplexing and bewildering experience he quotes Joel who says that God will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh. This is actually quite interesting because when we explain Pentecost we might want to begin with the Tower of Babel. You should remember that in Genesis 11, God confused the language of the people and scattered them all over the earth. It is a productive line of biblical theology to observe that Pentecost in Acts 2 was a gathering of Jews from all over the place who could understand each other due to the supernatural intervention of the Spirit of God. However, while that is true, if we are going to understand Peter's interpretation of what is going on, we also need to look at another story from the Torah.

The Story

The story begins for us in the background of Joel 2. Joel was prophesying that what Moses wished for in Numbers 11 would indeed take place.

Numbers 11 is the story of a grumbling people and their grumbling leader Moses. In scene 1: the people complained about their misfortunes and angered the Lord but then Moses interceded for the people and the fire God sent died down (Num 11:1-2). In scene 2: the people complained about not having meat. There are several verses explaining that the manna that they had to eat was quite good food - it was attractive looking and it tasted good (Num 11:7-9). They had no good reason to complain. But Moses did not intercede for them this time. Instead, he complained about the people. In judgment, God tells Moses that the people will get their meat - so much of it that they will regret having ever complained about not having any - and that Moses will get help. God said, "I will take some of the Spirit that is on you and put it on" seventy of the elders. These elders would help Moses bear the burden of the people. Let us begin reading the story at verse 24:

Numbers 11:24 So Moses went out and told the people the words of the Lord. And he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tent. 25 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. And as soon as the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied. But they did not continue doing it. 26 Now two men remained in the camp, one named Eldad, and the other named Medad, and the Spirit rested on them. They were among those registered, but they had not gone out to the tent, and so they prophesied in the camp. 27 And a young man ran and told Moses, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp." 28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the assistant of Moses from his youth, said, "My lord Moses, stop them." 29 But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!" 30 And Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the camp. (ESV)

So what happened here was that God took part of the Spirit He had put on Moses onto these seventy elders. When they received the Spirit, they briefly prophesied in order to show that they had received the Spirit. Two of these elders were not anywhere near Moses when the Spirit was poured on them and they prophesied too. Now Joshua was very concerned about this because it meant that the work of the Spirit of God did not need Moses present. And if so, then Moses' authority as the unique prophetic mediator of Israel was in danger. Joshua's concerns were founded because from this point forward in Numbers the people questioned Moses' leadership. So Joshua urged Moses to stop them, but Moses instead of focusing on the judgment that God was bringing on his leadership focused on the blessing of the Spirit being poured out on others. Instead of grumbling again, Moses had learned his lesson and said that it would be wonderful for the Spirit to be poured out on everyone.

The Answer to the Story

So what is the answer to the story? This is what we find in the New Testament. The first answer to the story is that we need a prophet greater than Moses who will intercede for His people even when they are all ready to desert Him. Where Moses failed to intercede for his people - to go before God on their behalf, Jesus did not (John 17). Jesus offered up what is often called the "High Priestly Prayer," which really should be called the "Prophet Greater than Moses Prayer of Intercession," because intercessory prayer was part of the prophet's job. But the more important answer for the purposes of our passage (Acts 2) is that the exalted Jesus poured out the Spirit He received from the Father onto all flesh. What Moses wished for, and Joel prophesied, Jesus accomplished.

And the people briefly prophesied. That is, Luke tells us that the people told the mighty works of God (Acts 2:11). We know that some people during the age of the apostles were given the gift of prophecy and the gift of speaking in tongues. But the people who prophesied on Pentecost were not given this gift perpetually. And just because everyone could hear everyone else tell the good news of the mighty works of God in their own dialect did not mean that speaking in tongues was a gift that remained the case for them. Instead, just like in the case of the seventy elders they briefly prophesied to show that the Holy Spirit had been poured out on them.

Notice the content of their prophecy. In Acts 2:11 the summary was simply that they told "the mighty works of God." What were these mighty works? If you have any doubt, look at Peter's prophetic comments. He explains the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost as the work of the exalted Christ. Beginning at verse 22, Peter speaks as the Spirit gave him utterance about Jesus Christ. "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst." The mighty works were the works of Christ. His works included wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below. It is "this Jesus" who, "exalted at the right hand of God," did the mighty work and wonders and signs of Pentecost (Acts 2:33).

This mighty work at Pentecost was a sign of what the Spirit-filled church would do. The gospel was to go to the ends of the earth, which meant that the good news would need to be spoken in many languages and dialects, just as everyone heard the gospel on that day in their own tongue. The Spirit of God would point all to Jesus.

So "what does this mean?" It means that Jesus had poured out the Spirit on all flesh. Therefore, if you want the gift of the Holy Spirit, to quote Peter,

"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).

Bridging Contexts to Today (How to Get from the Ancient Text to Today)

Pentecost was a fundamentally unrepeatable event. So if there is not to be another Pentecost today, then how is our story different?

People today have the same need for union and communion with the risen Christ through the Spirit. And people today still need to seek to be filled with the Spirit of Christ.

1. With His resurrection, Jesus Christ became the possessor and conveyor of life in the Spirit. And with the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost, he conveyed the Spirit to all flesh. In case anyone doubted that this was limited to the Jews and earlier converts to Judaism, the rest of Acts narrates how the Spirit also came to the Samaritans (mixed race of Jew and Gentile) and the Gentiles. The Spirit was poured out on all flesh, "all" here does not mean all in the sense that everyone who ever lived after Pentecost is saved, instead "all flesh" means to convey that the Spirit would not discriminate between Jews and Gentiles.

2. One difference between our situation and the opening of Acts 2 is that we do not need to speak in tongues as a prophetic sign that we have the Spirit. In fact, not everyone who receives the Spirit in the book of Acts briefly speaks in tongues like at the beginning of Acts 2 - there is no account of those that Peter preached to at the end of the chapter speaking in tongues or prophesying when they received the Spirit. Some do speak in tongues briefly when the Spirit comes to them elsewhere in Acts - these are unique situations though: for example, in the case of Cornelius' household it served as a prophetic sign that the Spirit was poured out not just on the Jews but also on the Gentiles. While Peter preached in his home, the Holy Spirit fell on all who were there. The text says,

"For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God" (Acts 10:46).

When He reported this to show that the Spirit was for the Gentiles too, he said,

15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' (Acts 11:15-16)

Here we have an expansion of the scope of Pentecost. As Peter said, "the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning." "The beginning" that Peter means is when the Spirit poured out on Pentecost and caused them to speak in tongues so that others could understand the good news in their own language. It was not a repetition of Pentecost but the unfolding of Pentecost in a new setting where a sign was helpful to verify that it was the will of God that the gospel go to the Gentiles without them converting to being Jews first. But then when other Gentiles became disciples later, they did not speak in tongues when they received the Spirit because the sign had already shown the people that the Spirit was not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles.

3. Moreover, we have to appreciate something else that was unique in the situation in Acts. That is, there were believers before the Spirit was sent on Pentecost. Many of them had been baptized with water but they awaited Jesus' baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire that came on Pentecost. For them there would be two-stages - one could be a Christian and not be baptized with the Holy Spirit yet. They were saved in the same way that we were, just as those in the Old Testament era were, but like most believers in the Old Testament era they did not possess the power of the Holy Spirit yet because of their timing in the history of redemption. However, for us, Scripture teaches that we who are Christians after Pentecost receive the gift of the Holy Spirit when we become Christians.

4. Not every believer during the age of the apostles had the gift of prophecy but they were all prophets. They were not prophets in the sense of revealing new things that have been hidden until now: all prophecy has as its content Jesus Christ and everything necessary for our salvation concerning Him we have in Scripture. This was not the case for the church during the age of the apostles when the Scriptures were not complete, but it is the case today. All Christians after Pentecost are prophets in the sense that as we have the Holy Spirit. We can confess the truth about the risen Christ to the world and He gives us the words we need to say to point people to Christ. And all Christians are prophets in that we can all offer up intercessory prayer on the behalf of others. The Reformers taught about the priesthood of all believers, we likewise may speak of the prophet-hood of all believers.

Application

Christ continues to apply the benefit of Pentecost to us through a repentant faith that calls upon His name. Each of the points above in bridging contexts supports this application.

People today have the same need for union and communion with the risen Christ through the Spirit. And people today who have the Spirit still need to seek to be filled with the Spirit of Christ. The only answer to these needs is to call upon the name of the Lord.

38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

So are you going to repent? Are you going to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?

There are signs that show the world today that you have the Holy Spirit. If you have received the Spirit, you will show concern for the poor. For Luke it was as Christ was anointed with the Spirit of the Lord God that he brought good news to the poor (cf. Isa 61, Luke 4:18). And He ends this section on Pentecost by noting that they sold their possessions and belongings and distributed the proceeds to all, as any had need (2:45). If you have received the Spirit, you will devote yourself to the apostle's teaching and fellowship, you will worship and fellowship with other Christians daily, and you will be numbered with the saved. (Acts 2:42, 46-47). In short, you will be a disciple of Christ.

The paradigm for receiving the Spirit today is not the opening to Acts 2 but the ending. If anyone says: But you did not speak in tongues and prophesy so how can you know that you have the Spirit? Your reply can be the same as the Magisterial Reformers to the radicals (oft-called Anabaptists but not to be confused with modern anabaptists) on the issue of miracles. The Anabaptists said that they had miracles to support their views. The Reformers replied, 'We have all the miracles of the Bible to support our teachings.' Likewise we might say, 'We have all of the cases of speaking in tongues and prophesying when the Spirit came upon the people in Acts as signs that we indeed have the Spirit because we have a repentant faith.' After all, those at the end of Acts 2 are never said to speak in tongues.

Labels: acts 2, joel, miracles, numbers, pentecost, pentecostalism, prophecy, speaking in tongues

Click here to listen to this teaching.

There is probably no subject where there are more varying views among Reformed theologians and churches than on the significance and observance of the Lord's Supper. Even the names given to the sacrament show different emphases: the Lord's Supper, communion, and the eucharist (a thanksgiving meal). Nevertheless, the PC(USA) Book of Confessions is remarkably consistent in its teaching on the Supper. It is a Spiritual feeding on Christ and as such a means of God's grace.

Scots Confession:

"In the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls. Not that we imagine any transubstantiation of bread into Christ's body, and of wine into his natural blood, as the Romanists have perniciously taught and wrongly believed; but this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use of the sacraments is wrought by means of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, once broken and shed for us but now in heaven, and appearing for us in the presence of his Father. Notwithstanding the distance between his glorified body in heaven and mortal men on earth, yet we must assuredly believe that the bread which we break is the communion of Christ's body and the cup which we bless the communion of his blood.

Thus we confess and believe without doubt that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord's Table, do so eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus that he remains in them and they in him; they are so made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone that as the eternal Godhood has given to the flesh of Christ Jesus, which by nature was corruptible and mortal, life and immortality, so the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ Jesus does the like for us." (3.21)

The Lord's Supper is not merely symbolic. This teaching is compared to the Roman Catholic Church, which taught that the bread and wine turn into the blood and body of Christ as physical food, the Lutheran Church, which did not teach transubstantiation but did teach that the sacrament is a physical feeding on Christ, and the view of Zwingli (a Reformed theologian), which taught that the sacrament was merely symbolic. John Calvin (Reformed theologian) tried to compromise between the Lutherans and Zwingli by arguing for a Spiritual feeding on Christ. This is the position of the confessions we hold.

Heidelberg Catechism:
This was a compromise document between the Lutherans and Reformed and it follows Calvin's teaching.

Q. 79. Then why does Christ call the bread his body, and the cup his blood, or the New Covenant in his blood, and why does the apostle Paul call the Supper "a means of sharing" in the body and blood of Christ?

A. Christ does not speak in this way except for a strong reason. He wishes to teach us by it that as bread and wine sustain this temporal life so his crucified body and shed blood are the true food and drink of our souls for eternal life. Even more, he wishes to assure us by this visible sign and pledge that we come to share in his true body and blood through the working of the Holy Spirit as surely as we receive with our mouth these holy tokens in remembrance of him, and that all his sufferings and his death are our own as certainly as if we had ourselves suffered and rendered satisfaction in our own persons. (4.079, w/emphasis)

Second Helvetic Confession:

THE SUPPER OF THE LORD. The Supper of the Lord (which is called the Lord's Table, and the Eucharist, that is, a Thanksgiving), is, therefore, usually called a supper, because it was instituted by Christ at his last supper, and still represents it, and because in it the faithful are spiritually fed and given drink. (5.193, with emphasis).

The most of the rest of the section on the Lord's Supper spells out that this means the same as above.

The Westminster Confession of Faith:

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. (6.167, with emphasis)

However, there is a major difference between our confessions and polity in the PC(USA) and it is debated within other denominations:

The confessions teach that children of the covenant cannot participate in the Lord's Supper until they are of age and discretion to examine themselves or they are silent on the participation of children even though they spell it out for baptism.

Scots Confession:

We hold that baptism applies as much to the children of the faithful as to those who are of age and discretion, and so we condemn the error of the Anabaptists, who deny that children should be baptized before they have faith and understanding. But we hold that the Supper of the Lord is only for those who are of the household of faith and can try and examine themselves both in their faith and their duty to their neighbors. Those who eat and drink at that holy table without faith, or without peace and goodwill to their brethren, eat unworthily. (3.23, emphasis added).

Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. 81. Who ought to come to the table of the Lord?
A. Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, and who nevertheless trust that these sins have been forgiven them and that their remaining weakness is covered by the passion and death of Christ, and who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and improve their life. The impenitent and hypocrites, however, eat and drink judgment to themselves. (4.081)

Interestingly, the first preface to the catechism explains that it is to be taught to children in preparation for their admittance to the Lord's Table.

Second Helvetic Confession stresses self-examination but is silent about the issue of children as far as I could find.

The Westminster Standards addresses the issue in the Larger Catechism:

Q. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ?
A. The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ, in that Baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves. (7.287, emphasis added)

So Why Do We Allow Children to Come to the Table? (paedocommunion)

Other covenant meals (like Passover) included children of the covenant at the table. Since the Lord's Supper replaces those sacramental meals, it too should include children. Those Old Testament meals also required self-examination for adults (and presumably self-examination for children to the extent that they could do so). Thus when Paul says that you must examine yourself he is speaking primarily to adults, just as when the Old Testament said the same for other meals.

After all, Jesus told Peter,

"Feed my lambs" (John 21:15)

and

"Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

It is still important that we insist that those who are unrepentant keep from the table. For Scripture says,

"Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor 11:28-29)

Labels: communion, consubstantiation, eucharist, Lord's Supper, mass, paedocommunion, transubstantiation

The basic arguments for the Reformed view of Baptism including infants note the parallel of circumcision and baptism and the household formulas in Scripture. Here is an explanation:

Listen to This Teaching

In ancient covenant procedure, you took an oath of allegiance (i.e. "the pledge to God for a good conscience" of 1 Peter 3:21) and did rites symbolizing the ordeal sanctions of the covenant (enacting what would happen to you if you failed to keep covenant). Whenever someone went to their king in the ancient near east and went through the ancient covenant procedure they did so on their own pledge and their pledge of loyalty to the king was for those that he or she represented. Thus under the Old Covenant, the servant of God would be circumcised and have his children circumcised. And under the New Covenant, the servant of God would be baptized and have his or her children baptized. God deals with families in terms of the representative authority of the head.

The pattern of God's dealings with humanity is by household - during both the Old and New Testaments. Everyone agrees that this is so during the Old Testament. Infants were circumcised because they belonged to the household of one who chose to follow the Lord. We do not need to establish whether there were infants in the households mentioned in Acts or not. What we need to establish is whether God still works with households in the New Testament just as he did in the Old Testament.

Genesis 7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. (ESV, emphasis added)

Joshua 24:15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (ESV, emphasis added)

Those times when the little children are excluded it was expressly stated: i.e., Gen 50:7-8; 1 Sam 1:21-22

Matthew 10:12 As you enter the house, greet it. 13 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. (ESV)

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." (ESV, emphasis added)

Acts 11:14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." (ESV, emphasis added)

Acts 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. 15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us. (ESV, emphasis added)

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. (ESV, emphasis added)

The baptism of households was the norm in the New Testament. When an authority unit of the home professed faith and was baptized, then the entire household was included under his or her authority. Thus children can be told to obey their parents in the Lord (Eph 6:4).

What about verses like Acts 16:31-32?

And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. (ESV, emphasis added)

Children can be instructed to fear God from a very young age.

2 Timothy 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (ESV, NIV says infancy)

The word translated childhood here is the same as the babe in the womb of Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), and the word babe for the baby Jesus (Luke 2:12), and the word infants in the story where the disciples rebuked the people for bringing their very young children (Luke 18:15). It clearly means infants and very young children.

But take a look at the next 2 verses:

Acts 16:33 "And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God." (ESV, emphasis added)

Notice that the verb for who believed is singular - it was because of his faith. This is obscured in many translations, but anyone who knows Greek can see that it is a singular verb. If I remember correctly this argument is made in an article in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism edited by Gregg Strawbridge.

At the end of the day, whether one is baptized as an infant or an adult the sacrament has dual sanctions. And "drowning" will come to those who respond to God in unbelief and blessing to those who respond to God in faith. God sets forward his promise in the sacrament. How we respond to that promise does not change God's action. This blog post relies heavily on the explanation of Lane Tipton of Westminster Theological Seminary.

Labels: anabaptism, baptism, circumcision, covenant, household formula, infant baptism, judgment by ordeal, paedobaptism

Meredith G. Kline's God, Heaven, and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos is a fun book for the biblical scholar. Kline is still providing volumes of insight within a single sentence, but this time with much fewer hyphenated words. There was one paragraph with "altar-throne-temple-city" and the customary coined Klinisms like Glory-Spirit still show up from time to time. But, by and large, the sentences are a little more readable.

The book accomplishes its goal (telos). Tracing from the beginning of the cosmos to the telos of the theme of the Mount of Gathering from the Genesis Garden of Eden to Revelation's resurrected Har Magedon. The biblical story is much more fascinating, as related by Kline, than all of the fictional tales out there on "Armaggedon."

Like Alleluia should be Hallelu-yah (Hebrew for Praise Yah--the nickname of Israel's God: Yahweh), this really should be transliterated as Har Magedon not Armaggedon. In both cases, the Greek has a rough breathing mark that corresponds to the guttural "h" sound but the English translators ignore. Har is Hebrew for hill or mountain, the latter being preferable here since this would the top of the world - figuratively speaking the highest mountain. And Magedon, Kline explains, is really Moed in Hebrew. Moed is Hebrew for assembly or gathering or congregation. The -on ending is common for Hebrew nouns. And the "g" sound is trying to transliterate a soft guttural letter 'ayin that we usually do not pronounce at all. Moreover, John always explains transliterated words by giving a translation into Greek. Here that is found in the sentence too: "he gathered them to the place called in Hebrew har magedon." Thus Har Magedon means Mount of Gathering. Kline also makes other points to solidify the argument, including where the phrase is the cosmic polar opposite to Hades or the pit. Thus the Heights of Zaphon on the one hand, and the depths of the pit on the other. The pit in Revelation is the Hebrew term Abbadon, the angel of the Abyss or Hades or Sheol, and often a synonym. It is found where we would expect the opposite of Har Magedon to be in Revelation.

Kline traces this motif from the mountain of Eden through Ararat through Sinai-Horeb through Jerusalem-Zion to the new Jerusalem. In the end, he provides a stellar explanation of the 3 and 1/2 times interval in Daniel and Revelation. And he avoids the errors of pre and postmillennialism and provides positive development of the so-called amillennial view, which really believes that the millennium is the period between AD 70 and Christ's return. The 1000 years is time from the heavenly perspective, total and complete. But the time is 3 and 1/2 years and not FOUR from the perspective of the saints suffering persecution and martyrdom. Four is the wisdom number for complete. Thus, from the perspective of the saints, HOW LONG? will not be too long. We will not be utterly destroyed and consumed. Throughout this discussion, Kline remains Christocentric or better yet Christotelic in explaining the victory belongs to Jesus Christ on the Mount of Gathering at the end of the present world order.

For those of us who are living in the symbolic "3 and 1/2 years" that have taken from AD 70 into the present and possibly beyond, not knowing when Christ will return on the clouds, this book removes much of the confusion that others would frighten us with. May all the glory go to God. May He gather us to Har Magedon soon. Amen.

Labels: amillennialism, armaggedon, daniel, eschatology, kline, mountain of God, protology, revelation, telos

John H. Sailhamer's Introduction to Old Testament Theology, lays out the argument that we are developing and building upon (we are especially adding its relevance for the Christian).

The shape of the Hebrew Scriptures (Torah-Prophets-Writings, see the posting below) is intentional and apologetic. It marks a historical shift from the spoken word of God (sometimes alongside the written) to the written exclusively. And it marks a shift from prophets to wise men (wisdom teachers). The shape of the Hebrew canon was meant to guide the faithful Israelite to wisdom to know the will of God for their life between the cessation of prophecy and the return of the prophet Elijah and then the prophet greater than Moses.

The way the Torah-Prophets-Writings are stitched together reveals this agenda, which is from God.

Torah: The compositional strategy of Genesis is easily seen when one observes where the poems fall within the text. The same pattern is also true on a larger level in the Torah. Genesis itself has as its finale a poem and then an epilogue. Numbers and Deuteronomy do the same. Each of the epilogues looks forward to the next leader within Israel.

However, in Deuteronomy there is then a second poem and a second epilogue written from the perspective of the editor of the canon. In them Moses is dead. This is traditionally one of the most controversial issues of Torah scholarship - how can one say that Moses wrote it if Moses died during it. The answer: Moses did not write the second poem and second epilogue, which do not fit the original compositional strategy of the Torah but clearly betray a later redaction. This later edit is fully the word of God as well as fully the words of this editor. The second poem repeats themes from the Genesis 49 poem. But here the role of the Levites are treated more comprehensively - because the Levites teach the written word to the people [the Levites are wise men, wisdom teachers]. The poem says,

"They shall teach Jacob your rules and Israel your Torah" (Deut 33:10).

The second epilogue reveals the editor's intentions by describing Joshua as

"full of the Spirit of wisdom" (34:9).

The agenda is to make Joshua more like a wisdom teacher than a prophet. That this is written when prophecy has ceased in Israel (for at least 400 years before Christ came) and when it was not expected to resume until the end is clear from the next verse.

"And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom YHWH knew face to face" (Deut 34:10) and "none like him for all the signs and wonders that YHWH sent him to do" (Deut 34:11-12).

Thus concludes the Torah. No prophet greater than Moses has appeared. Prophecy has ceased. Look to Wisdom to know the will of God for your decision-making.

Prophets: The canon editor then stitched this together with the Prophets section. Joshua, opening the prophets, is portrayed as a wisdom leader. God tells Joshua,

"Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the Torah, which Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go" (Josh 1:7).

Not turning to the right or to the left is wisdom language, and the promise that this will bring success is common in wisdom literature. As if to make this connection to wisdom concrete, the introduction to Joshua continues in this vein,

"This Book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success" (Josh 1:8).

Here we see the move from the spoken word of the prophet to the written word ("the book of the Torah" that you meditate upon) and we see the wisdom themes continue.

The Prophets ends with the Book of the Twelve, concluding with Malachi. The shape of the latter prophets within the Prophets moves in the direction of priestly concerns. Ezekiel would have been a priest and shows deep concern for priestly issues and the Book of the Twelve shows the same movement because the last three books are concerned with priestly issues. Malachi, for example, focuses on the job of the priests as teaching the Torah:

"True instruction was in his [Levi] mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek Torah from his mouth, for he is the messenger of YHWH of hosts" (Mal 2:6-7).

Malachi ends with these words, though they are not necessary for the book on its own,

"Remember the Torah of my servant Moses, the statutes and rules that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. Behold, I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of YHWH comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction" (devoted to destruction) (Mal 4:4-6 in English Bible).

Here the editor concludes the Prophets on much the same note that he concluded the Torah. The prophet greater than Moses has not appeared (it was not Elijah). Prophecy has ceased, adding that it will return with the return of Elijah before the coming of the prophet greater than Moses. Until then, look to Wisdom (study Scripture) to know the will of God for your decision-making.

The editor stitched the Prophets to the Writings just like he did the Torah to the Prophets. These seams are parallel.

Writings: The writings open with Psalm 1. Of course, Psalms 1 & 2 serve as an introduction to the entirety of the book of Psalms. This book has been compiled intentionally as well. But for our purposes remember that Psalm 1 is much like the opening to Joshua.

Psalm 1: Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; 2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. 3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. 4 The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. 5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous; 6 for the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish (ESV).

Here again the way of wisdom is presented and the righteous wisdom teacher meditates on the Torah of YHWH day and night - and he prospers.



How is this relevant for those who live on this side of the New Testament canon?

The Old Testament is shaped to answer the question: "How do I know the will of the Lord when prophecy has ceased?" Now that we have a complete New Testament canon, with nothing to add or subtract, and prophecy has again ceased, "How do I know the will of the Lord?" Study the Torah, Prophets, Writings (Old and New). Study the written word of God under wisdom teachers because that has replaced the spoken word of the prophets. The written word is sufficient - we need nothing more to know the will of God for our salvation or to make any decision. We have the advantage of the Holy Spirit poured out on all flesh - the Wisdom of God is in our hearts and can show us the way of wisdom as a rule by using the written word of God. How do we know when one Proverb applies and another does not? This is a wisdom question. Wisdom is the paradigm for Christian living during this time between the end of prophecy (the end of the New Testament era) and the return of Jesus Christ.

This conclusion of course is not one that my Pentecostal friends (of which I have many here in Appalachia) can follow: they believe that the infallible spoken word still is to sought for direction from the Lord. They will often say, "the Lord told me to say..." or "the Lord has revealed to me...." But prophecy has ceased, just as it did before. I do not deny that God will work with some people non-discursively (bypassing teaching) but He does not do so infallibly today just as discursive prophecy (preaching) is not infallible today. Yet the shape of the Scriptures clearly show the advantages of the latter. Much more important is this consideration: NT writings like Ephesians do not describe being filled with the Holy Spirit as being someone who speaks in tongues or does other special prophecy but instead they say the Spirit-filled address one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; sing; make melody; give thanks to God; and the Spirit-filled household is a place of mutual submission (Eph 5).

As an additional note for those interested in the discipline of Biblical Theology: this makes a way for us to appreciate the role of wisdom literature. The question had always been: "How do books like Proverbs fit into Biblical Theology?" This gives these texts a place in redemptive history - they speak to how to live during the era between prophecy's cessation and Christ's arrival just as they point forward to an era of prophecy's cessation and Christ's return. Thus the almost instinctive drive to put Proverbs in pocket NT's is very wise indeed.

3 May 2008: I would like to add that in seminary we looked rather extensively at the hints within the NT that prophecy would cease with the end of the apostolic age. I was reading something that said the writings are always the last to be received as part of the canon -- this was true with the OT writings as well as the NT writings. Revelation was one of the last books to receive recognition as being within the canon. And it was part of the writings, but not just placed anywhere within the writings, it was put last. It is noteworthy then that Revelation ends this way:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen" (Rev 22:18-21, ESV).

What a fitting end to the NT canon. Like the ending of OT Torah and Prophets it acknowledges the gap between the end of canon and the coming of the Christ. And thus it serves as an appropriate end to the book as well as to the NT writings. Moreover, its warning about adding or subtracting from the book also then applies to the whole canon. This is my primary issue with the error of pentecostalism, it has to do with Scripture's own doctrine of Scripture, for infallible prophecy to continue is to add to Scripture. The problem is pastoral -- how can I help you discover the will of God to make decisions in your life? Wisdom, not prophecy, is the answer Scripture gives. And we discern wisdom in the community of faith -- thus issues of calling require both an internal and external call.

Labels: bible, biblical theology, book of the twelve, canon, cessationism, deuteronomy, elijah, Genesis, hebrew scriptures, joshua, malachi, moses, pentecostalism, prophets, psalms, sailhamer, torah, wisdom

OT Canonical Order assumed in the NT: Jesus said,

"everything written about me in the Law of Moses [Torah] and the Prophets and the Psalms [Writings] must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44).

The Psalms, the first and largest book of the writings section, is often used to refer to all of the writings. And Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees,

"on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sancturary and the altar" (Matt 23:35).

Jesus is refering to the first book Genesis (where Abel is the first death) and the last book of the Hebrew canon Chronicles (where this Zechariah is the last death). Thus he is using this as shorthand for all of the righteous saints who died in the Old Testament Scriptures. Jesus assumed the OT canonical order stated below.

It is the order found in Jewish Bibles. Thus, the Hebrew Scriptures are often called the Tanakh (in Hebrew, T is for Torah, N for Prophets, K for Writings). Here the Westminster Confession of Faith could use some reformation as it lists the Old Testament books in a different order reflected also in English language translations of the Bible. Notice that the New Testament follows the same God-given pattern...

Torah: In the beginning (Genesis); Exodus; Leviticus; In the wilderness (Numbers); and These are the words (Deuteronomy). The phrases are the Hebrew titles (the first word in the Hebrew text).

Prophets: Joshua; Judges; Samuel; Kings; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; The Book of the Twelve (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi).

Writings: Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.

New Testament Torah: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

New Testament Prophets: Acts

New Testament Writings: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

Eugene Peterson suggests that Acts is partially Torah and partially Prophets, making the fifth book of NT Torah. Then he makes most of the epistles Prophets while James and Revelation are writings. Sometimes I am persuaded by this argument.

Early comments: As you might guess, you can compare the Books of Moses to the gospels and Joshua to Acts. And putting them this way helps you see why Daniel and Revelation have so much in common -- they are both apocalyptic (genre) writings (section). Nevertheless, do not flatten the Bible and ignore the historical nature of special revelation.

First observation: Old Testament books that have been divided in the English Bible into two should be read as one book. For example, 1 Kings and 2 Kings is one book as is 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles. One you might not realize is that Ezra-Nehemiah is also one book. And it is very important to read the so-called minor prophets instead of as separate books as The Book of the Twelve. They have been edited together to be read as a single book. It would also be appropriate, though divided in the order of the New Testament, to read Luke and Acts as one book. The reason that the gospel of John divides them in our canon is that John is assuming that you already know the stories we can find in Matthew, Mark & Luke. Thus he writes a book that reflects much more theologically on the life of Christ.

It is worth noting, unlike in the OT the 1 Letter, 2 Letter, 3 Letter designations in the NT are indeed separate letters and should be read as such but putting them next to one another also encourages you to see the connections between them. In this order the authors of the epistles are separated: Romans through Philemon are by Paul, Hebrews is by an unknown author, James, Peter, John, and Jude are as the names suggest.

Second observation: You should read Scripture according to these divisions (Torah, Prophets, Writings, Old and New). How you read the OT Torah is different than how you read the OT Writings.

To build on this observation: Each book needs a unique reading strategy and knowing where they fall in the canoncial order helps. One thing that is necessary for interpretation is to identify the kind of writing (the genre) that you are reading. You read a grocery list differently than a love letter and a fable different than a history textbook. And so you should read Matthew differently than Revelation and Psalms differently than Isaiah. Not every scholar will agree on the genre of a text. For example, one person might say that you should read Deuteronomy like you would read the gospels. It contains his speeches but it also includes information that is likely told by someone telling us the story. Another will mention that the book resembles an ancient treaty formula. Actually both of these observations are helpful for Deuteronomy, especially the former given our discussion. Knowing which section of the canon a book falls into will help you to identify the genre. For another example, Daniel is a wisdom book (found in the writings alongside other wisdom books) and not one of the prophetic books. This does not mean that Daniel does not include prophecy but it does mean that you should read it differently than one of the prophetic books. It is a failure to recognize this truth that has led to all sorts of interpretive mistakes.

Third Observation: And when we read the books in order we should also interpret them in order, thus Ruth and the woman in Song of Songs are examples of the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 (in the Hebrew order it is Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs).

May you read Scripture afresh. Amen.

Labels: bible, book of the twelve, canon, daniel, deuteronomy, ezra-nehemiah, hebrew scriptures, prophets, proverbs 31, psalms, ruth, scripture, song of songs, Tanakh, torah, writings

Labels: commandments, confessions, creation, depravity, election, grace, idolatry, justification, perseverance, predestination, providence, revelation, revival, sanctification, sovereignty, trinity